44442 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 80, 85, 86, 94, 1027, 1033, 

1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051, 

1054, 1060, 1065, and 1068 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121; FRL–8926–5] 

RIN 2060–AO38 

Control of Emissions From New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 30 Liters per Cylinder 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing emission 

standards for new marine diesel engines 

with per cylinder displacement at or 

above 30 liters (called Category 3 marine 

diesel engines) installed on U.S. vessels, 

under section 213 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). The proposed 

engine standards are equivalent to the 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) limits recently 

adopted in the amendments to Annex VI 

to the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL Annex VI) and are based on 

the position advanced by the United 

States Government as part of those 

international negotiations. The nearterm standards for newly-built engines 

would apply beginning in 2011. Longterm standards would begin in 2016 and 

are based on the application of highefficiency aftertreatment technology. We 

are also proposing a change to our diesel 

fuel program that would forbid the 

production and sale of marine fuel oil 

above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in the 

waters within the proposed U.S. ECA 

and internal U.S. waters and allow for 

the production and sale of 1,000 ppm 

sulfur fuel for use in Category 3 marine 

vessels. 

This proposal is part of a coordinated 

strategy to ensure that all ships that 

affect U.S. air quality meet stringent 

NOX and fuel sulfur requirements. In 

addition, on March 27, 2009, the U.S. 

Government forwarded a proposal to the 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) to amend MARPOL Annex VI to 

designate an Emission Control Area 

(ECA) off U.S. coasts. If this proposed 

amendment is not timely adopted by 

IMO, we intend to take supplemental 

action to control emissions from vessels 

affecting U.S. air quality. 

We project that in 2030 this 

coordinated strategy would reduce 

annual emissions of NOX and 

particulate matter (PM) from oceangoing vessels by 1.2 million and 143,000 

tons, respectively. These reductions are 

estimated to annually prevent between 

13,000 and 32,000 PM-related 

premature deaths, between 220 and 980 

ozone-related premature deaths, 

1,500,000 work days lost, and 

10,000,000 minor restricted-activity 

days. The estimated annual monetized 

health benefits of this coordinated 

strategy in 2030 would be between $110 

and $280 billion, assuming a 3 percent 

discount rate (or between $100 and $260 

billion assuming a 7 percent discount 

rate). The annual costs would be 

significantly less, at approximately $3.1 

billion. 

The proposed regulations also include 

technical amendments to our motor 

vehicle and nonroad engine regulations. 

Many of these changes involve minor 

adjustments or corrections to our 

recently finalized rule for new nonroad 

spark-ignition engines, or adjustment to 

other regulatory provisions to align with 

this recent final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received 

September 28, 2009. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before September 28, 

2009, thirty days after date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0121, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

(Air Docket), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: 

3334, Mail Code: 2822T, Washington 

DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I.A 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document, and also go to 

Section X.A of the Public Participation 

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121 Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–0121 is (202) 566–1742. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44443 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Kopin, U.S. EPA, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Assessment and Standards Division 

(ASD), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 

(734) 214–4417; fax number: (734) 214– 

4050; e-mail address: 

Kopin.Amy@epa.gov, or Assessment and 

Standards Division Hotline; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4636. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

This action will affect companies that 

manufacture, sell, or import into the 

United States new marine compressionignition engines with per cylinder 

displacement at or above 30 liters 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 or operators of such U.S. 

vessels. Additionally, this action may 

affect companies and persons that 

rebuild or maintain these engines. 

Finally, this action may also affect those 

that manufacture, import, distribute, 

sell, and dispense fuel for use by 

Category 3 marine vessels. Affected 

categories and entities include the 

following: 

Category NAICS Code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ............................................ 333618 ........................................... Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines. 

Industry ............................................ 336611 ........................................... Manufacturers of marine vessels. 

Industry ............................................ 811310 ........................................... Engine repair and maintenance. 

Industry ............................................ 483 ................................................. Water transportation, freight and passenger. 

Industry ............................................ 324110 ........................................... Petroleum Refineries. 

Industry ............................................ 424710, 424720 ............................. Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; Petroleum and Petroleum 

Products Wholesalers. 

Note: 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

company is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 80.501, 

94.1, 1042.1, and 1065.1, and the 

proposed regulations. If you have 

questions, consult the person listed in 

the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Additional Information About This 

Rulemaking 

The current emission standards for 

new compression-ignition marine 

engines with per cylinder displacement 

at or above 30 liters per cylinder were 

adopted in 2003 (see 68 FR 9746, 

February 28, 2003). This notice of 

proposed rulemaking relies in part on 

information that was obtained for that 

rule, which can be found in Public 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0045. This 

docket is incorporated into the docket 

for this action, EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview 

A. What Are the Elements of EPA’s 

Coordinated Strategy for Ocean-Going 

Vessels? 

B. Why is EPA Making this Proposal? 

C. Statutory Basis for Action 

II. Air Quality, Health and Welfare Impacts 

A. Public Health Impacts 

B. Environmental Impacts 

C. Air Quality Modeling Results 

D. Emissions From Ships With Category 3 

Engines 

III. Engine Standards 

A. What Category 3 Marine Engines are 

Covered? 

B. What Standards are we Proposing for 

Freshly Manufactured Engines? 

C. Are the Standards Feasible? 

IV. Fuel Standards 

A. Background 

B. Current Diesel Fuel Standards 

C. Applicability 

D. Fuel Sulfur Standards 

E. Technical Amendments to the Current 

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Program Regulations 

V. Emission Control Areas for U.S. Coasts 

A. What is an ECA? 

B. U.S. Emission Control Area Designation 

C. Technological Approaches to Comply 

With ECA Standards 

D. ECA Designation and Foreign-Flagged 

Vessels 

VI. Certification and Compliance Program 

A. Compliance Provisions for Category 3 

Engines 

B. Compliance Provisions To Implement 

Annex VI NOX Regulation and the NOX

Technical Code 

C. Changes to the Requirements Specific to 

Engines Below 30 Liters per Cylinder 

D. Other Proposed Regulatory Issues 

E. Coast Guard’s Marine Vessel 

Certification Program 

VII. Costs and Economic Impacts 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44444 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area 

for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and 

Particulate Matter, Submitted by the United States 

and Canada. IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 

March, 2009. A copy of this document can be found 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci

/mepc–59–eca–proposal.pdf. 

2For the purpose of this proposal, the term 

‘‘ECA’’ refers to both the ECA and internal U.S. 

waters. Refer to Section VI.B. for a discussion of the 

application of the fuel sulfur and engine emission 

limits to U.S. internal waters through APPS. 

A. Estimated Fuel Costs 

B. Estimated Engine Costs 

C. Cost Effectiveness 

D. Economic Impact Analysis 

VIII. Benefits 

A. Overview 

B. Quantified Human Health Impacts 

C. Monetized Benefits 

D. What Are the Limitations of the Benefits 

Analysis? 

E. Comparison of Costs and Benefits 

IX. Alternative Program Options 

A. Mandatory Cold Ironing Requirement 

B. Earlier Adoption of CAA Tier 3 

standards 

C. Standards for Existing Engines 

X. Public Participation 

A. How Do I Submit Comments? 

B. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing? 

D. Comment Period 

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

XII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

I. Overview 

This proposal is part of a coordinated 

strategy to address emissions from 

ocean-going vessels and is an important 

step in EPA’s ongoing National Clean 

Diesel Campaign (NCDC). In recent 

years, we have adopted major new 

programs designed to reduce emissions 

from new diesel engines, including 

those used in highway (66 FR 5001, 

January 18, 2001), nonroad (69 FR 

38957, June 29, 2004), locomotive, and 

marine applications (73 FR 25098, May 

6, 2008). When fully phased in, these 

programs will significantly reduce 

emissions of harmful regulated 

pollutants from these categories of 

engines and vehicles. This Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sets out 

the next step in this ambitious effort by 

addressing emissions from the largest 

marine diesel engines, called Category 3 

(C3) marine diesel engines. These are 

engines with per cylinder displacement 

at or above 30 liters per cylinder, which 

are used primarily for propulsion power 

on ocean-going vessels (OGV). 

Emissions from OGV remain at high 

levels. The Category 3 engines on these 

vessels use emission control technology 

that is comparable to that used by 

nonroad engines in the early 1990s, and 

use fuel that can have a sulfur content 

of 30,000 ppm or more. As a result, 

these engines emit high levels of 

pollutants that contribute to unhealthy 

air in many areas of the U.S. Nationally, 

in 2009, emissions from Category 3 

engines account for about 10 percent of 

mobile source nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

emissions, about 24 percent of mobile 

source diesel PM2.5 emissions (with 

PM2.5 referring to particles with a 

nominal mean aerodynamic diameter 

less than or equal to 2.5 μm), and about 

80 percent of mobile source sulfur 

oxides (SOX) emissions. As we look into 

the future, however, emissions from 

ocean-going vessels are expected to 

become a dominant inventory source. 

This will be due to both emission 

reductions from other mobile sources as 

new emission controls go into effect and 

to the anticipated activity growth for 

ocean transportation. Without new 

controls, we anticipate the contribution 

of ocean-going vessels to national 

emission inventories to increase to 

about 24 percent, 34 percent, and 93 

percent of mobile source NOX, PM2.5, 

and SOX emissions, respectively in 

2020, growing to 40 percent, 48 percent, 

and 95 percent respectively in 2030. 

The coordinated emission control 

strategy will lead to significant 

reductions in these emissions and 

important benefits to public health. 

The evolution of EPA’s strategy to 

control mobile source diesel emissions 

has followed a technology progression, 

beginning with the application of highefficiency advanced aftertreatment 

approaches and low sulfur fuel 

requirements first to highway vehicles, 

then to nonroad engines and equipment, 

followed by locomotives and smaller 

marine diesel engines. The benefits of 

this approach include maximizing air 

quality benefits by focusing on the 

largest populations of sources with the 

shortest service lives, allowing engine 

manufacturers to spread initial research 

and development costs over a larger 

population of engines, and allowing 

manufacturers to address the challenges 

of applying advanced emission controls 

on smaller engines. 

EPA has been working with engine 

manufacturers and other industry 

stakeholders for many years to identify 

and resolve challenges associated with 

applying advanced diesel engine 

technology to Category 3 engines to 

achieve significant NOX emission 

reductions. This work was fundamental 

in developing the emission limits for 

Category 3 engines that we are 

proposing in this action and informed 

the position advocated by the United 

States in the international negotiations 

for more stringent tiers of international 

engine emission limits. 

Our coordinated strategy to control 

emissions from ocean-going vessels 

consists of actions at both the national 

and international levels. It includes: (1) 

The engine and fuel controls we are 

proposing in this action under our Clean 

Air Act authority; (2) the proposal 1

submitted by the United States 

Government (USG) to the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) to amend 

Annex VI of the International 

Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex 

VI) to designate U.S. coasts as an 

Emission Control Area (ECA) 2 in which 

all vessels, regardless of flag, would be 

required to meet the most stringent 

engine and marine fuel sulfur 

requirements in Annex VI; and (3) the 

new engine emission and fuel sulfur 

limits contained in the amendments to 

Annex VI that are applicable to all 

vessels regardless of flag and that are 

implemented in the U.S. through the 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

(APPS). 

The amendments to APPS to 

incorporate Annex VI provide the 

authority to ensure compliance with 

MARPOL Annex VI by U.S. and foreign 

vessels that enter U.S. ports or operate 

in U.S. waters. In light of this, we are 

deciding not to revisit our existing 

approach with respect to foreign vessels 

in this rule. However, the MARPOL 

Annex VI Tier III NOX and stringent fuel 

sulfur limits are geographically based 

and would not become effective absent 

designation of U.S. coasts as an ECA. As 

noted above, the United States 

forwarded a proposal to IMO to amend 

Annex VI to designate U.S. coasts as an 

ECA. If this amendment is not adopted 

in a timely manner by IMO, we intend 

to take supplemental action to control 

emissions from vessels that affect U.S. 

air quality. 

Our coordinated strategy for oceangoing vessels would significantly reduce 

emissions from foreign and domestic 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44445 

3These emission inventory reductions include 

reductions from ships operating within the 24 

nautical mile regulatory zone off the California 

Coastline, beginning with the effective date of the 

Coordinated Strategy program elements. The 

California regulation contains a provision that 

would sunset the requirements of the rule if the 

Federal program achieves equivalent emission 

reductions. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ 

fuelogv08/fro13.pdf at 13 CCR 2299.2(j)(1). 

4As explained in the NPRM, there were no 

acceptable procedures for measuring PM from 

Category 3 marine engines. Specifically, established 

PM test methods showed unacceptable variability 

when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight percent, 

which was common at that time for both residual 

and distillate marine fuels for Category 3 engines, 

and no PM test method or calculation methodology 

had been developed to correct that variability for 

these engines. See 67 FR 37569, May 29, 2002. 

vessels that affect U.S. air quality, and 

the impacts on human health and 

welfare would be substantial. We 

project that by 2030 this program would 

reduce annual emissions of NOX and 

particulate matter (PM) by 1.2 million 

and 143,000 tons, respectively, and the 

magnitude of these reductions would 

continue to grow well beyond 2030.3

These reductions are estimated to 

annually prevent between 13,000 and 

32,000 PM-related premature deaths, 

between 220 and 980 ozone-related 

premature deaths, 1,500,000 work days 

lost, and 10,000,000 minor restrictedactivity days. The estimated annual 

monetized health benefits of this 

coordinated strategy in 2030 would be 

between $110 and $280 billion, 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or 

between $100 and $260 billion 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The 

annual cost of the overall program in 

2030 would be significantly less, at 

approximately $3.1 billion. 

A. What Are the Elements of EPA’s 

Coordinated Strategy for Ocean-Going 

Vessels? 

Our coordinated strategy for oceangoing vessels, including the CAA 

emission standard proposed in this 

action, continues EPA’s program to 

progressively apply advanced 

aftertreatment emission control 

standards to diesel engines and reflects 

the evolution of this technology from 

the largest inventory source (highway 

engines), to land-based nonroad 

engines, to locomotives and marine 

diesel engines up to 30 liters per 

cylinder. The results of these forerunner 

programs are dramatic reductions in 

NOX and PM2.5 emissions on the order 

of 80 to 90 percent, which will lead to 

significant improvements in national air 

quality. 

The combination of controls in the 

coordinated strategy for ocean-going 

vessels is expected to provide 

significant reductions in PM2.5, NOX, 

SOX, and toxic compounds, both in the 

near term (as early as 2011) and in the 

long term. These reductions would be 

achieved in a manner that: (1) Is very 

cost effective compared to additional 

controls on portside vehicles and 

equipment and other land-based mobile 

sources that are already subject to 

stringent technology-forcing emission 

standards; (2) leverages the international 

program adopted by IMO to ensure that 

all ships that operate in areas that affect 

U.S. air quality are required to use 

stringent emission control technology; 

and (3) provides the lead time needed 

to deal with the engineering design 

workload that is involved in applying 

advanced high-efficiency aftertreatment 

technology to these very large engines. 

Overall, the coordinated strategy 

constitutes a comprehensive program 

that addresses the problems caused by 

ocean-going vessel emissions from both 

a near-term and long-term perspective. 

It does this while providing for an 

orderly and cost-effective 

implementation schedule for the vessel 

owners and manufacturers, and in a way 

that is consistent with the international 

requirements for these vessels. 

The human health and welfare 

impacts of emissions from ocean-going 

vessels, along with estimates of their 

contribution to national emission 

inventories, are described in Section II. 

The proposed new tiers of Clean Air Act 

engine emission standards to address 

these emissions, and our justifications 

for them, are discussed in Section III. 

Section IV contains proposed changes to 

our existing marine diesel fuel program. 

In Section V, we describe a key 

component of the coordinated strategy: 

the recently-submitted proposal to 

amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate 

U.S. coasts as an ECA, as well as the 

IMO approval process. 

In addition to the new emission 

limits, we are proposing several 

revisions to our Clean Air Act testing, 

certification, and compliance provisions 

to better ensure emissions control in 

use. We are also proposing several 

regulations for the purpose of 

implementing MARPOL Annex VI 

pursuant to the Act to Prevent Pollution 

From Ships (33 USC 1901 et seq.). These 

revisions are described in Section VI. 

Sections VII and VIII present the 

estimated costs and benefits of our 

coordinated program to address OGV 

emissions, and Section IX presents the 

analysis of programmatic alternatives 

and a discussion of a potential 

Voluntary Marine Verification Program. 

(1) What CAA Standards Is EPA 

Proposing? 

We are proposing new tiers of 

Category 3 marine diesel engine 

standards under our Clean Air Act 

authority, as well as certain revisions to 

our marine fuel program. 

Category 3 Engine Standards. Our 

current standards for Category 3 engines 

were adopted in 2003. These Tier 1 

standards are equivalent to the first tier 

of MARPOL Annex VI NOX limits and 

require the use of control technology 

comparable to that used by nonroad 

engines in the early 1990s. We did not 

adopt PM standards at that time because 

the vast majority of PM emissions from 

Category 3 engines are the result of the 

sulfur content of the residual fuel they 

use and because of measurement 

issues.4 The combination of the engine 

and fuel standards we are proposing in 

this NPRM and the USG proposal for 

ECA designation will require all vessels 

that operate in coastal areas that affect 

U.S. air quality to meet advanced engine 

standards and fuel controls. 

We are proposing to revise our CAA 

engine program to include two 

additional tiers of NOX standards for 

new marine diesel engines with per 

cylinder displacement at or above 30 

liters (Category 3 engines) installed on 

vessels flagged or registered in the 

United States. The proposed near-term 

Tier 2 standards would apply beginning 

in 2011 and would require more 

efficient use of engine technologies 

being used today, including engine 

timing, engine cooling, and advanced 

computer controls. The proposed longterm Tier 3 standards would apply 

beginning in 2016 and would require 

the use of high-efficiency aftertreatment 

technology such as selective catalytic 

reduction. 

Because much of the operation of U.S. 

vessels occurs in areas that would have 

little, if any, impact on U.S. air quality, 

we are proposing that our Clean Air Act 

program allow the use of alternative 

emission control devices (AECDs) that 

would permit a ship to meet less 

stringent requirements on the open sea. 

The use of these devices would be 

subject to certain restrictions, including 

a requirement that the AECD not disable 

emission controls while operating in 

areas where emissions could reasonably 

be expected to adversely affect U.S. air 

quality, and that the engine is equipped 

with a NOX emission monitoring device. 

In addition, the engine would be 

required to meet the Tier 2 NOX limits 

when the AECD is implemented, and an 

AECD would not be allowed on any Tier 

2 or earlier engine. 

In addition to the NOX emission 

limits, we are proposing standards for 

emissions of hydrocarbons (HC) and 

carbon monoxides (CO) from new 

Category 3 engines. As explained in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44446 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

5Note that the MARPOL Annex VI standards are 

referred to as Tiers I, II, and III; EPA’s Category 3 

emission standards are referred to as Tiers 1, 2, and 

3. 

6Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area 

for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and 

Particulate Matter, Submitted by the United States 

and Canada. IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 

March, 2009. A copy of this document can be found 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/

ci/mepc–59–eca–proposal.pdf. 

Section III.B.1, below, we are not 

proposing to set a standard for PM 

emissions for Category 3 engines. 

However, significant PM emissions 

benefits will be achieved through the 

ECA fuel sulfur requirements that will 

apply to ships that operate in areas that 

affect U.S. air quality. We are also 

proposing to require engine 

manufacturers to measure and report 

PM emissions pursuant to our authority 

in section 208 of the Act. 

Fuel Sulfur Limits. EPA is in this 

notice proposing fuel sulfur limits 

under section 211(c) of the Clean Air 

Act that match the limits that apply 

under Annex VI in ECAs. First, we are 

proposing to forbid the production and 

sale of fuel oil with a sulfur content 

above 1,000 ppm for use in the waters 

within the proposed ECA (as well as 

internal U.S. waters). Second, we are 

proposing a revision to our existing 

diesel fuel program to allow for the 

production and sale of 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel for use in Category 3 marine 

vessels. This would allow production 

and distribution of fuel consistent with 

the new sulfur limits that will become 

applicable, under Annex VI, in ECAs 

beginning in 2015. Our current diesel 

fuel program sets a sulfur limit of 15 

ppm that will be fully phased-in by 

December 1, 2014 for nonroad, 

locomotive, and marine (NRLM) diesel 

fuel produced for distribution/sale and 

use in the U.S. Without this proposed 

change to our existing diesel fuel 

regulations, fuel with a sulfur content of 

up to 1,000 ppm could be used in C3 

marine vessels, but it could not be 

legally produced in the U.S. after June 

1, 2014. 

(2) What is the United States 

Government Proposal for Designation of 

an Emission Control Area? 

MARPOL Annex VI contains the 

international standards for air emissions 

from ships, including NOX and SOX

/PM emissions. The Annex VI NOX and 

SOX /PM limits are set out in Table I– 

1. Annex VI was originally adopted by 

the Parties in 1997 but did not go into 

force until 2005, after it was ratified by 

fifteen countries representing at least 50 

percent of the world’s merchant 

shipping tonnage. The initial program 

consisted of engine NOX emission 

standards and fuel sulfur limits. The 

NOX standards apply to all engines 

above 130 kW installed on a ship 

constructed on or after January 1, 2000 

and were intended to reduce NOX

emissions by about 30 percent from 

uncontrolled. There were two fuel 

sulfur limits: A global limit of 45,000 

ppm and a more stringent 15,000 ppm 

limit that applies in SOX Emission 

Control Areas (SECAs). This approach 

ensured that the cleanest fuel was used 

in areas that demonstrated a need for 

additional SOX reductions, while 

retaining the ability of ships to use 

higher sulfur residual fuel on the open 

ocean. 

Annex VI was amended in October 

2008, adding two tiers of NOX limits 

(Tier II and Tier III) and two sets of fuel 

sulfur standards.5 These amendments 

will enter into force on July 1, 2010 

unless an objection is raised before 

January 1, 2010 by at least one-third of 

the parties to the Annex or by parties 

that represent at least 50 percent of the 

world’s gross merchant tonnage. The 

most stringent NOX and fuel sulfur 

limits are regionally based and will 

apply only in designated ECAs. 

TABLE I—1—ANNEX VI NOX EMISSION STANDARDS AND FUEL SULFUR LIMITS

Less than 130 

RPM 130–2000 RPM a Over 2000 RPM 

NOX ........................................................ Tier I ........ b 2004 17.0 45.0 · n(¥0.20) 9.8 

Tier II ....... 2011 14.4 44.0 · n(¥0.23) 7.7 

Tier III ...... 2016 3.4 9.0 · n(¥0.20) 2.0 

Global ECA 

Fuel Sulfur ......................................................................... 2004 45,000 ppm c .. 2005 15,000 ppm c

2012 35,000 ppm c .. 2010 10,000 ppm c

2020 5,000 ppm c d ... 2015 1,000 ppm c

NOTES: aApplicable standards are calculated from n (maximum in-use engine speed in revolutions per minute (rpm)), rounded to one decimal place. bTier 1 NOX standards apply for engines originally manufactured after 2004, and proposed to also to certain earlier engines. cAnnex VI standards are in terms of percent sulfur. Global sulfur limits are 4.5%; 3.5%; 0.5%. ECA sulfur limits are 1.5%; 1.0%; 0.1%. dSubject to a feasibility review in 2018; may be delayed to 2025. 

To realize the benefits from the 

MARPOL Annex VI Tier III NOX and 

fuel sulfur controls, areas must be 

designated as Emission Control Areas. 

On March 27, 2009, the U.S. and 

Canadian governments submitted a 

proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI 

to designate North American coastal 

waters as an ECA (referred to as the 

‘‘U.S./Canada ECA’’ or the ‘‘North 

American ECA’’).6 A description of this 

submittal and the IMO approval process 

is set out in Section V. ECA designation 

would ensure that ships that affect U.S. 

air quality meet stringent NOX and fuel 

sulfur requirements while operating 

within 200 nautical miles of U.S. coasts. 

We expect the U.S./Canadian proposal 

will be adopted by the Parties to 

MARPOL Annex VI in March 2010. If, 

however, the proposed amendment is 

not adopted in a timely manner, we 

intend to take supplemental action to 

control harmful emissions from vessels 

that affect U.S. air quality. 

(3) Regulations To Implement Annex VI 

The United States became a party to 

MARPOL Annex VI by depositing its 

instrument of ratification with IMO on 

October 8, 2008. This was preceded by 

the President signing into law the 

Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 

2008 (Pub. L. 110–280) on July 21, 2008, 

that contains amendments to the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 

1901 et seq.). These APPS amendments 

require compliance with Annex VI by 

all persons subject to the engine and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44447 

7U.S. EPA. (2004). Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel 

Engines, Chapter 3. Report No. EPA420–R–04–007. 

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm#ria. 

8State of California Air Resources Board. 

Roseville Rail Yard Study. Sacramento, CA: 

California EPA, California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). Stationary Source Division. This document 

is available electronically at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm. 

9 Di, P., Servin, A., Rosenkranz, K., Schwehr, B., 

Tran, H., (2006). Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure 

Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach. Sacramento, CA: California EPA, 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrieved 

March 19, 2009 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ 

marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf. 

10This type of screening-level analysis is an 

inexact tool and not appropriate for regulatory 

decision-making; it is useful in beginning to 

understand potential impacts and for illustrative 

purposes. Additionally, the emissions inventories 

used as inputs for the analyses are not official 

estimates and likely underestimate overall 

emissions because they are not inclusive of all 

emission sources at the individual ports in the 

sample. 

vessel requirements of Annex VI. The 

amendments also authorize the United 

States Coast Guard and EPA to enforce 

the provisions of Annex VI against 

domestic and foreign vessels and to 

develop implementing regulations, as 

necessary. In addition, APPS gives EPA 

sole authority to certify engines 

installed on U.S. vessels to the Annex 

VI requirements. This NPRM contains 

proposed regulations to implement 

several aspects of the Annex VI engine 

and fuel regulations, which we are 

proposing under that APPS authority. 

Our cost and benefit analyses for the 

coordinated strategy includes the costs 

for U.S. vessels of implementing those 

provisions of the MARPOL Annex VI 

program that are in addition to the ECA 

requirements. 

(4) Technical Amendments 

The proposed regulations also include 

technical amendments to our motor 

vehicle and nonroad engine regulations. 

Many of these changes involve minor 

adjustments or corrections to our 

recently finalized rule for new nonroad 

spark-ignition engines, or adjustment to 

other regulatory provisions to align with 

this recent final rule. 

(5) Summary 

The coordinated strategy emission 

control requirements are the MARPOL 

Annex VI global Tier II NOX standards 

included in the amendments to Annex 

VI and the ECA Tier 3 NOX limits and 

fuel sulfur limits that will apply when 

the U.S. coasts are designated as an ECA 

through an additional amendment to 

Annex VI. The Annex VI requirements, 

including the future ECA requirements, 

will be enforceable for U.S. and foreign 

vessels operating in the United States 

waters through the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships. 

We are also adopting the engine 

controls for Category 3 engines on U.S. 

vessels under our Clean Air Act 

program, as required by Section 213 of 

the Act. 

Finally, we are proposing additional 

requirements that are not part of the 

Annex VI program or the ECA. These 

are: Limits on hydrocarbon and carbon 

monoxide emissions for Category 3 

engines; PM measurement requirement, 

to obtain data on PM emissions from 

engines operating on distillate fuel; and 

changes to our Clean Air Act diesel fuel 

program to allow production and sale of 

ECA-compliant fuel. We are also 

considering changes to our emission 

control program for smaller marine 

diesel engines to harmonize with the 

Annex VI NOX requirements, for U.S. 

vessels that operate internationally. 

B. Why is EPA Making This Proposal? 

(1) OGV Contribute to Serious Air 

Quality Problems 

Ocean-going vessels subject to this 

proposal generate significant emissions 

of PM2.5, SOX, and NOX that contribute 

to nonattainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ground-level 

ozone (smog). NOX and SOX are both 

precursors to secondary PM2.5

formation. Both PM2.5 and NOX

adversely affect human health. NOX is a 

key precursor to ozone as well. NOX, 

SOX and PM2.5 emissions from oceangoing vessels also cause harm to public 

welfare, including contributing to 

deposition of nitrogen and sulfur, 

visibility impairment and other harmful 

environmental impacts across the U.S. 

The health and environmental effects 

associated with these emissions are a 

classic example of a negative externality 

(an activity that imposes 

uncompensated costs on others). With a 

negative externality, an activity’s social 

cost (the costs borne to society imposed 

as a result of the activity taking place) 

is not taken into account in the total 

cost of producing goods and services. In 

this case, as described in this section 

below and in Section II, emissions from 

ocean-going vessels impose public 

health and environmental costs on 

society, and these added costs to society 

are not reflected in the costs of 

providing the transportation services. 

The market system itself cannot correct 

this externality because firms in the 

market are rewarded for minimizing 

their production costs, including the 

costs of pollution control. In addition, 

firms that may take steps to use 

equipment that reduces air pollution 

may find themselves at a competitive 

disadvantage compared to firms that do 

not. To correct this market failure and 

reduce the negative externality from 

these emissions, we propose to set a cap 

on the rate of emission production from 

these sources. EPA’s coordinated 

strategy for ocean-going vessels will 

accomplish this since both domestic 

and foreign ocean-going vessels will be 

required to reduce their emissions to a 

technologically feasible limit. 

Emissions from ocean-going vessels 

account for substantial portions of the 

country’s ambient PM2.5, SOX and NOX

levels. We estimate that in 2009 these 

engines account for about 80 percent of 

mobile source sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions, 10 percent of mobile source 

NOX emissions and about 24 percent of 

mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions. 

Emissions from ocean-going vessels are 

expected to dominate the mobile source 

inventory in the future, due to both the 

expected emission reductions from 

other mobile sources as a result of more 

stringent emission controls and due to 

growth in the demand for ocean 

transportation services. By 2030, the 

coordinated strategy would reduce 

annual SO2 emissions from these diesel 

engines by 1.3 million tons, annual NOX

emissions by 1.2 million tons, and PM2.5

emissions by 143,000 tons, and those 

reductions would continue to grow 

beyond 2030 as fleet turnover to the 

clean engines continues. While a share 

of these emissions occur at sea, our air 

quality modeling results described in 

Section II show they have a significant 

impact on ambient air quality far inland. 

Both ozone and PM2.5 are associated 

with serious public health problems, 

including premature mortality, 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease (as indicated by 

increased hospital admissions and 

emergency room visits, school absences, 

lost work days, and restricted activity 

days), changes in lung function and 

increased respiratory symptoms, altered 

respiratory defense mechanisms, and 

chronic bronchitis. Diesel exhaust is of 

special public health concern, and since 

2002 EPA has classified it as likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans by inhalation at 

environmental exposures. Recent 

studies are showing that populations 

living near large diesel emission sources 

such as major roadways, rail yards, and 

marine ports are likely to experience 

greater diesel exhaust exposure levels 

than the overall U.S. population, putting 

them at greater health risks.789

EPA recently updated its initial 

screening-level analysis 10 of selected 

marine port areas to better understand 

the populations that are exposed to 

diesel particulate matter emissions from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44448 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

11 ICF International. September 28, 2007. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter 

concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and 

rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work 

Assignment Number 0–3, Contract Number EP–C– 

06–094. This memo is available in Docket EPA–HQ

–OAR–2007–0121. 

12 ICF International. September 28, 2007. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter population 

exposure near selected harbor areas and rail yards. 

Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment 

Number 0–3, Contract Number EP–C–06–094. This 

memo is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121. 

13 ICF International, December 10, 2008. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter population 

exposure near selected harbor areas with revised 

harbor emissions. Memorandum to EPA under 

Work Assignment Number 2–9. Contract Number 

EP–C–06–094. This memo is available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

14 ICF International. December 1, 2008. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter 

concentration isopleths near selected harbor areas 

with revised emissions. Memorandum to EPA 

under Work Assignment Number 1–9. Contract 

Number EP–C–06–094. This memo is available in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

15The Agency selected a representative sample 

from the top 150 U.S. ports including coastal and 

Great Lake ports. 

16These areas are defined in section 162 of the 

Act as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 

5,000 acres, and all international parks which were 

in existence on August 7, 1977. Section 169 of the 

Clean Air Act provides additional authority to 

address existing visibility impairment and prevent 

future visibility impairment in the 156 national 

parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as 

mandatory class I Federal areas. 

these facilities.11 12 13 14 This screeninglevel analysis focused on a 

representative selection of national 

marine ports.15 Of the 45 marine ports 

selected, the results indicate that at least 

18 million people, including a 

disproportionate number of low-income 

households, African-Americans, and 

Hispanics, live in the vicinity of these 

facilities and are being exposed to 

ambient diesel PM levels that are 2.0 

μ g/m3 and 0.2 μ g/m3 above levels 

found in areas further from these 

facilities. Considering only ocean-going 

marine engine diesel PM emissions, the 

results indicate that 6.5 million people 

are exposed to ambient diesel 

particulate matter (DPM) levels that are 

2.0 μg/m 3 and 0.2 μ g/m3 above levels 

found in areas further from these 

facilities. Because those populations 

exposed to diesel PM emissions from 

marine ports are more likely to be lowincome and minority residents, these 

populations would benefit from the 

controls being proposed in this action. 

The detailed findings of this study are 

available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Even outside port areas, millions of 

Americans continue to live in areas that 

do not meet existing air quality 

standards today. With regard to PM2.5

nonattainment, in 2005 EPA designated 

39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 943, January 5, 

2005). These areas are composed of 208 

full or partial counties with a total 

population exceeding 88 million. The 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was recently revised 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS became 

effective on December 18, 2006. As of 

December 22, 2008, there are 58 2006 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas composed of 

211 full or partial counties. These 

numbers do not include individuals 

living in areas that may fail to maintain 

or achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

future. Currently, ozone concentrations 

exceeding the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

occur over wide geographic areas, 

including most of the nation’s major 

population centers. As of December 

2008, there are approximately 132 

million people living in 57 areas (293 

full or partial counties) designated as 

not in attainment with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These numbers do not include 

people living in areas where there is a 

potential that the area may fail to 

maintain or achieve the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

In addition to public health impacts, 

there are serious public welfare and 

environmental impacts associated with 

PM2.5 and ozone emissions. Specifically, 

NOX and SOX emissions from diesel 

engines contribute to the acidification, 

nitrification, and eutrophication of 

water bodies. NOX, SOX and direct 

emissions of PM2.5 can contribute to the 

substantial impairment of visibility in 

many parts of the U.S. where people 

live, work, and recreate, including 

national parks, wilderness areas, and 

mandatory class I Federal areas.16 The 

deposition of airborne particles can also 

reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings 

and culturally important articles 

through soiling, and can contribute 

directly (or in conjunction with other 

pollutants) to structural damage by 

means of corrosion or erosion. Finally, 

ozone causes damage to vegetation 

which leads to crop and forestry 

economic losses, as well as harm to 

national parks, wilderness areas, and 

other natural systems. 

While EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 and 

ozone levels, including the Nonroad 

Spark Ignition Engine rule (73 FR 

59034, Oct. 8, 2008), the Locomotive 

and Marine Diesel Engine Rule (73 FR 

25098, May 6, 2008), the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, 

May 12, 2005) and the Clean Air 

Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 

29, 2004), the Heavy Duty Engine and 

Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel 

Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 

FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001), and the Tier 2 

Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program 

(65 FR 6698, Feb. 10, 2000), the 

additional PM2.5, SOX and NOX

emission reductions resulting from the 

coordinated approach described in this 

action would assist states in attaining 

and maintaining the PM2.5 and ozone 

NAAQS near term and in the decades to 

come. 

Air quality modeling conducted by 

EPA projects that in 2020 at least 13 

counties with about 30 million people 

may violate the 1997 standards for PM2.5

and 50 counties with about 50 million 

people may violate the 2008 standards 

for ozone. These numbers likely 

underestimate the impacted population 

since they do not include the people 

who live in areas which do not meet the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, these 

numbers do not include the additional 

13 million people in 12 counties who 

live in areas that have air quality 

measurements within 10 percent of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the additional 

80 million people in 135 counties who 

live in areas that have air quality 

measurements within 10% of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The emission reductions 

resulting from this coordinated strategy 

would assist these and other states to 

both attain and maintain the PM2.5 and 

ozone NAAQS. 

State and local governments are 

working to protect the health of their 

citizens and comply with requirements 

of the Clean Air Act. As part of this 

effort, they recognize the need to secure 

additional major reductions in diesel 

PM2.5, SOX and NOX emissions by 

undertaking numerous state level 

actions, while also seeking Agency 

action, including the setting of the CAA 

Category 3 engine standards being 

proposed in this NPRM and the U.S. 

proposal to IMO to amend Annex VI to 

designate U.S. coastal areas as an ECA, 

and related CAA certification and fuel 

provisions to complement that ECA 

proposal. EPA’s coordinated strategy to 

reduce OGV emissions through engine 

emission controls and fuel sulfur limits 

would play a critical part in state efforts 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS 

through the next two decades. 

In addition to regulatory programs, 

the Agency has a number of innovative 

programs that partner government, 

industry, and local communities 

together to help address challenging air 

quality problems. Under the National 

Clean Diesel Campaign, EPA promotes a 

variety of emission reduction strategies 

such as retrofitting, repairing, replacing 

and repowering engines, reducing idling 

and switching to cleaner fuels. 

In 2008, Congress appropriated 

funding for the Diesel Emissions 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44449 

Reduction Program (DERA) under the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) 

to reduce emissions from heavy-duty 

diesel engines in the existing fleet. The 

EPAct 2005 directs EPA to break the 

funding into two different components: 

A National competition and a State 

allocation program. The National 

Program, with 70 percent of the funding, 

consists of three separate competitions: 

(1) The National Clean Diesel Funding 

Assistance Program; (2) the National 

Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies 

Program; and (3) the SmartWay Clean 

Diesel Finance Program. The State Clean 

Diesel Grant and Loan Program utilizes 

the remaining 30 percent of the funding. 

In the first year of the program, EPA 

awarded 119 grants totaling $49.2 

million for diesel emissions reduction 

projects and programs across the 

country for cleaner fuels, verified 

technologies and certified engine 

configurations. 

Through $300 million in funding 

provided to the DERA program under 

the American Reinvestment and 

Recovery Act of 2009, EPA will promote 

and preserve jobs while improving 

public health and achieving significant 

reductions in diesel emissions. 

Furthermore, EPA’s National Clean 

Diesel Campaign, through its Clean 

Ports USA program, is working with 

port authorities, terminal operators, 

shipping, truck and rail companies to 

promote cleaner diesel technologies and 

strategies today through education, 

incentives, and financial assistance for 

diesel emissions reductions at ports. 

Part of these efforts involves clean 

diesel programs that can further reduce 

emissions from the existing fleet of 

diesel engines. Finally, many of the 

companies operating in states and 

communities suffering from poor air 

quality have voluntarily entered into 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) 

designed to ensure that the cleanest 

technologies are used first in regions 

with the most challenging air quality 

issues. 

In addition to the above innovative 

programs, we are seeking comment on a 

Voluntary Marine Verification Program 

to address emissions from existing 

Category 3 engines. This voluntary 

program would extend our existing 

diesel retrofit verification program to 

these largest marine vessels. The 

concept is described in Section IX.C.3 

below. 

Taken together, these voluntary 

approaches can augment the 

coordinated strategy and help states and 

communities achieve larger reductions 

sooner in the areas of our country that 

need them the most. The Agency 

remains committed to furthering these 

programs and others so that all of our 

citizens can breathe clean healthy air. 

(2) Advanced Emission Technology 

Solutions are Available 

Air pollution from marine diesel 

exhaust is a challenging problem. 

However, we believe it can be addressed 

effectively through the use of existing 

technology to reduce engine-out 

emissions combined with highefficiency catalytic aftertreatment 

technologies. As discussed in greater 

detail in Section III.C, the development 

of these aftertreatment technologies for 

highway and nonroad diesel 

applications has advanced rapidly in 

recent years, so that very large emission 

reductions in NOX emissions can be 

achieved. 

Control of NOX emissions from 

Category 3 engines can be achieved with 

high-efficiency exhaust emission control 

technologies. Such technologies have 

already been applied to meet our lightduty passenger car standards and are 

expected to be used to meet the 

stringent NOX standards included in 

EPA’s heavy-duty highway diesel, 

nonroad Tier 4, and locomotive and 

marine diesel engine programs. They 

have been in production for heavy duty 

trucks in Europe since 2005, as well as 

in many stationary source applications 

throughout the world. These 

technologies are discussed further in 

Section III.C. While these technologies 

can be sensitive to sulfur, their use will 

be required only in ECAs designated 

under MARPOL Annex VI, and they are 

expected to be able to operate on ECA 

fuel meeting a 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur. 

With the lead time available and the 

assurance of 1,000 ppm fuel for oceangoing vessels in 2015, as would be 

required through ECA designation for 

U.S. coasts, we are confident the 

proposed application of advanced NOX

technology to Category 3 marine engines 

will proceed at a reasonable rate of 

progress and will result in systems 

capable of achieving the proposed 

standards on the proposed schedule. 

Use of this lower sulfur fuel will also 

result in substantial PM emission 

reductions, since most of the PM 

emissions from Category 3 engines is 

due to the use of high sulfur residual 

fuel. 

C. Statutory Basis for Action 

Authority for the actions proposed in 

this documents is granted to the 

Environmental Protection Agency by 

sections 114, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 

211, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 

7414, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 

7545, 7547, 7550 and 7601(a)), and by 

sections 1901–1915 of the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 

1909 et seq.). 

(1) Clean Air Act Basis for Action 

EPA is proposing the fuel 

requirements pursuant to its authority 

in section 211 (c) of the Clean Air Act, 

which allow EPA to regulate fuels that 

contribute to air pollution which 

endangers public health or welfare (42 

U.S.C. 7545(c)). As discussed previously 

in EPA’s Clean Air Nonroad Diesel rule 

(69 FR 38958) and below in Section II 

of this preamble, the combustion of high 

sulfur diesel fuel by nonroad, 

locomotive, and marine diesel engines 

contributes to air quality problems that 

endanger public health and welfare. 

Section II also discusses the significant 

contribution to these air quality 

problems by Category 3 marine vessels. 

Additional support for the procedural 

and enforcement-related aspects of the 

fuel controls in the proposed rule, 

including the record keeping 

requirements, comes from sections 

114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 

Sections 7414 (a) and 7601 (a)). 

EPA is proposing emissions standards 

for new Category 3 marine diesel 

engines pursuant to its authority under 

section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, 

which directs the Administrator to set 

standards regulating emissions of NOX, 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or 

CO for classes or categories of engines, 

like marine diesel engines, that 

contribute to ozone or carbon monoxide 

concentrations in more than one 

nonattainment area. These ‘‘standards 

shall achieve the greatest degree of 

emission reduction achievable through 

the application of technology which the 

Administrator determines will be 

available for the engines or vehicles, 

giving appropriate consideration to cost, 

lead time, noise, energy, and safety 

factors associated with the application 

of such technology.’’ 

EPA is proposing a PM measurement 

requirement for new Category 3 marine 

diesel engines pursuant to its authority 

under section 208, which requires 

manufacturers and other persons subject 

to Title II requirements to ‘‘provide 

information the Administrator may 

reasonably require * * * to otherwise 

carry out the provisions of this 

part* * *’’ 

EPA is also acting under its authority 

to implement and enforce the Category 

3 marine diesel emission standards. 

Section 213(d) provides that the 

standards EPA adopts for marine diesel 

engines ‘‘shall be subject to Sections 

206, 207, 208, and 209’’ of the Clean Air 

Act, with such modifications that the 

Administrator deems appropriate to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44450 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

17U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate 

Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and 

Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– 

452/R–05–005a. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/

pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf. 

18U.S. EPA (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter. Volume I EPA600/P–99/002aF 

and Volume II EPA600/P–99/002bF. Retrieved on 

March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0190 at http://www.regulations.gov/. 

19U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate 

Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and 

Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– 

452/R–05–005a. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/

pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf. 

20The PM NAAQS is currently under review and 

the EPA is considering all available science on PM 

health effects, including information which has 

been published since 2004, in the development of 

the upcoming PM Integrated Science Assessment 

Document (ISA). A first draft of the PM ISA was 

completed in December 2008 and was submitted for 

review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee (CASAC) of EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board. Comments from the general public have also 

been requested. For more information, see http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/record

isplay.cfm?deid=201805. 

regulations implementing these 

sections.’’ In addition, the marine 

standards ‘‘shall be enforced in the same 

manner as [motor vehicle] standards 

prescribed under section 202’’ of the 

Act. Section 213(d) also grants EPA 

authority to promulgate or revise 

regulations as necessary to determine 

compliance with and enforce standards 

adopted under section 213. 

As required under section 213(a)(3), 

we believe the evidence provided in 

Section III.C of this Preamble and in 

Chapter 4 of draft Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) indicates that the 

stringent NOX emission standards 

proposed in this NPRM for newly-built 

Category 3 marine diesel engines are 

feasible and reflect the greatest degree of 

emission reduction achievable through 

the use of technology that will be 

available in the model years to which 

they apply. We have given appropriate 

consideration to costs in proposing 

these standards. Our review of the costs 

and cost-effectiveness of these standards 

indicate that they will be reasonable and 

comparable to the cost-effectiveness of 

other mobile source emission reduction 

strategies that have been required. We 

have also reviewed and given 

appropriate consideration to the energy 

factors of this rule in terms of fuel 

efficiency as well as any safety and 

noise factors associated with these 

proposed standards. 

The information in Section II of this 

preamble and Chapter 2 of the draft RIA 

regarding air quality and public health 

impacts provides strong evidence that 

emissions from Category 3 marine diesel 

engines significantly and adversely 

impact public health or welfare. EPA 

has already found in previous rules that 

emissions from new marine diesel 

engines contribute to ozone and CO 

concentrations in more than one area 

which has failed to attain the ozone and 

carbon monoxide NAAQS (64 FR 73300, 

December 29, 1999). 

The NOX and PM emission reductions 

expected to be achieved through the 

coordinated strategy would be 

important to states’ efforts to attain and 

maintain the Ozone and the PM2.5

NAAQS in the near term and in the 

decades to come, and would 

significantly reduce the risk of adverse 

effects to human health and welfare. 

(2) APPS Basis for Action 

EPA is proposing regulations to 

implement MARPOL Annex VI 

pursuant to its authority in section 1903 

of the Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships (APPS). Section 1903 gives the 

Administrator the authority to prescribe 

any necessary or desired regulations to 

carry out the provisions of Regulations 

12 through 19 of Annex VI. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships implements and makes Annex VI 

requirements enforceable domestically. 

However, certain clarifications are 

necessary with respect to implementing 

Regulation 13 and the requirements of 

the NOX Technical Code with respect to 

issuance of Engine International Air 

Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) 

certificates, approval of alternative 

compliance methods. Clarification is 

also needed with respect to the 

application of the Annex VI 

requirements to certain U.S. and foreign 

vessels that operate in U.S. waters. 

II. Air Quality, Health and Welfare 

Impacts 

The proposed NOX limits combined 

with the ECA designation for U.S. coasts 

and related proposed fuel standards are 

expected to significantly reduce 

emissions of NOX, PM, and SOX from 

ocean-going vessels. Emissions of these 

compounds contribute to nonattainment 

of the NAAQS for PM and ozone. In 

addition to contributing to PM 

nonattainment, these engines are 

emitting diesel particulate matter, 

which is associated with a host of 

adverse health effects, including cancer. 

In addition to their health effects, 

emissions from these engines also 

contribute to welfare and environmental 

effects including deposition, visibility 

impairment and harm to ecosystems 

from ozone. 

This section summarizes the general 

health and welfare effects of these 

emissions. Interested readers are 

encouraged to refer to the draft RIA for 

more in-depth discussions. 

A. Public Health Impacts 

(1) Particulate Matter 

(a) Background 

Particulate matter is a generic term for 

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. Since 1987, 

EPA has delineated that subset of 

inhalable particles small enough to 

penetrate to the thoracic region 

(including the tracheobronchial and 

alveolar regions) of the respiratory tract 

(referred to as thoracic particles). 

Current NAAQS use PM2.5 as the 

indicator for fine particles (with PM2.5

referring to particles with a nominal 

mean aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to 2.5 μm), and use PM10 as the 

indicator for purposes of regulating the 

coarse fraction of PM10 (referred to as 

thoracic coarse particles or coarsefraction particles; generally including 

particles with a nominal mean 

aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 

μm and less than or equal to 10 μm, or 

PM10–2.5). Ultrafine particles are a subset 

of fine particles, generally less than 100 

nanometers (0.1 μm) in aerodynamic 

diameter. 

Fine particles are produced primarily 

by combustion processes and by 

transformations of gaseous emissions 

(e.g., SOX, NOX and VOC) in the 

atmosphere. The chemical and physical 

properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly 

with time, region, meteorology, and 

source category. Thus, PM2.5 may 

include a complex mixture of different 

pollutants including sulfates, nitrates, 

organic compounds, elemental carbon 

and metal compounds. These particles 

can remain in the atmosphere for days 

to weeks and travel hundreds to 

thousands of kilometers.17

(b) Health Effects of PM 

Scientific studies show ambient PM is 

associated with a series of adverse 

health effects. These health effects are 

discussed in detail in EPA’s 2004 

Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria 

Document (PM AQCD) and the 2005 PM 

Staff Paper.18 Further discussion19 of 

health effects associated20 with PM can 

also be found in the draft RIA for this 

rule. 

Health effects associated with shortterm exposures (hours to days) to 

ambient PM include premature 

mortality, aggravation of cardiovascular 

and lung disease (as indicated by 

increased hospital admissions and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44451 

21U.S. EPA. (2006). National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. 71 

FR 2620, January 17, 2006. 

22 Ku ̈nzli, N., Jerrett, M., Mack, W.J., et al. (2004). 

Ambient air pollution and atherosclerosis in Los 

Angeles. Environ Health Perspect.,113, 201–206 

23This study is included in the 2006 Provisional 

Assessment of Recent Studies on Health Effects of 

Particulate Matter Exposure. The provisional 

assessment did not and could not (given a very 

short timeframe) undergo the extensive critical 

review by CASAC and the public, as did the PM 

AQCD. The provisional assessment found that the 

‘‘new’’ studies expand the scientific information 

and provide important insights on the relationship 

between PM exposure and health effects of PM. The 

provisional assessment also found that ‘‘new’’ 

studies generally strengthen the evidence that acute 

and chronic exposure to fine particles and acute 

exposure to thoracic coarse particles are associated 

with health effects. Further, the provisional science 

assessment found that the results reported in the 

studies did not dramatically diverge from previous 

findings, and taken in context with the findings of 

the AQCD, the new information and findings did 

not materially change any of the broad scientific 

conclusions regarding the health effects of PM 

exposure made in the AQCD. However, it is 

important to note that this assessment was limited 

to screening, surveying, and preparing a provisional 

assessment of these studies. For reasons outlined in 

Section I.C of the preamble for the final PM NAAQS 

rulemaking in 2006 (see 71 FR 61148–49, October 

17, 2006), EPA based its NAAQS decision on the 

science presented in the 2004 AQCD. 

24 Dockery, D.W., Pope, C.A. III, Xu, X, et al. 

(1993). An association between air pollution and 

mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med, 329, 

1753–1759. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http:

//content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/24/1753. 

25Pope, C.A., III, Thun, M.J., Namboodiri, M.M., 

Dockery, D.W., Evans, J.S., Speizer, F.E., and Heath, 

C.W., Jr. (1995). Particulate air pollution as a 

predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S. 

adults. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med, 151, 669–674. 

26 Krewski, D., Burnett, R.T., Goldberg, M.S., et al. 

(2000). Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities study 

and the American Cancer Society study of 

particulate air pollution and mortality. A special 

report of the Institute’s Particle Epidemiology 

Reanalysis Project. Cambridge, MA: Health Effects 

Institute. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http:// 

es.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/hei/ReanExecSumm.pdf. 

27Pope, C. A., III, Burnett, R.T., Thun, M. J., Calle, 

E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., Thurston, G.D., (2002). 

Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and longterm exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J. 

Am. Med. Assoc., 287, 1132–1141. 

28U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document 

for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–90/057F 

Office of Research and Development, Washington 

DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.

cfm?deid=29060. pp. 1–1 1–2. 

29U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document 

for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–90/057F 

Office of Research and Development, Washington 

DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.

cfm?deid=29060. 

30U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document 

for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–90/057F 

Office of Research and Development, Washington 

DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://cfpub.

epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. 

pp. 1–1 1–2. 31Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998). 

Diesel exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology, 

9(1), 84–91. 

32Lipsett, M., Campleman, S. (1999). 

Occupational exposure to diesel exhaust and lung 

cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health, 80(7), 

1009–1017. 

emergency department visits), increased 

respiratory symptoms including cough 

and difficulty breathing, decrements in 

lung function, altered heart rate rhythm, 

and other more subtle changes in blood 

markers related to cardiovascular 

health.21 Long-term exposure to PM2.5

and sulfates has also been associated 

with mortality from cardiopulmonary 

disease and lung cancer, and effects on 

the respiratory system such as reduced 

lung function growth or development of 

respiratory disease. A new analysis 

shows an association between long-term 

PM2.5 exposure and a measure of 

atherosclerosis development.22, 23

Studies examining populations 

exposed over the long term (one or more 

years) to different levels of air pollution, 

including the Harvard Six Cities Study 

and the American Cancer Society Study, 

show associations between long-term 

exposure to ambient PM2.5 and both 

total and cardiopulmonary premature 

mortality.24 In addition25, an 

extension26 of the American Cancer 

Society Study shows an association 

between PM2.5 and sulfate 

concentrations and lung cancer 

mortality.27

(c) Health Effects of Diesel Particulate 

Matter 

Marine diesel engines emit diesel 

exhaust (DE), a complex mixture 

composed of carbon dioxide, oxygen, 

nitrogen, water vapor, carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds 

and numerous low-molecular-weight 

hydrocarbons. A number of these 

gaseous hydrocarbon components are 

individually known to be toxic, 

including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3- 

butadiene. The diesel particulate matter 

(DPM) present in DE consists of fine 

particles (< 2.5 μm), including a 

subgroup with a large number of 

ultrafine particles (< 0.1 μm). These 

particles have a large surface area which 

makes them an excellent medium for 

adsorbing organics and their small size 

makes them highly respirable. Many of 

the organic compounds present in the 

gases and on the particles, such as 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), are 

individually known to have mutagenic 

and carcinogenic properties. Diesel 

exhaust varies significantly in chemical 

composition and particle sizes between 

different engine types (heavy-duty, 

light-duty), engine operating conditions 

(idle, accelerate, decelerate), and fuel 

formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). 

Also, there are emissions differences 

between on-road and nonroad engines 

because the nonroad engines are 

generally of older technology. This is 

especially true for marine diesel 

engines.28

After being emitted in the engine 

exhaust, diesel exhaust undergoes 

dilution as well as chemical and 

physical changes in the atmosphere. 

The lifetime for some of the compounds 

present in diesel exhaust ranges from 

hours to days.29

(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer 

Effects 

In EPA’s 2002 Diesel Health 

Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),30

exposure to diesel exhaust was 

classified as likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans by inhalation from 

environmental exposures, in accordance 

with the revised draft 1996/1999 EPA 

cancer guidelines. A number of other 

agencies (National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, the 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer, the World Health Organization, 

California EPA, and the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services) have made similar 

classifications. However, EPA also 

concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is 

not possible currently to calculate a 

cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due 

to a variety of factors that limit the 

current studies, such as limited 

quantitative exposure histories in 

occupational groups investigated for 

lung cancer. 

For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22 

epidemiologic studies on the subject of 

the carcinogenicity of workers exposed 

to diesel exhaust in various 

occupations, finding increased lung 

cancer risk, although not always 

statistically significant, in 8 out of 10 

cohort studies and 10 out of 12 casecontrol studies within several 

industries. Relative risk for lung cancer 

associated with exposure ranged from 

1.2 to 1.5, although a few studies show 

relative risks as high as 2.6. 

Additionally, the Diesel HAD also relied 

on two independent meta-analyses, 

which examined 23 and 30 occupational 

studies respectively, which found 

statistically significant increases in 

smoking-adjusted relative lung cancer 

risk associated with exposure to diesel 

exhaust of 1.33 to 1.47. These metaanalyses demonstrate the effect of 

pooling many studies and in this case 

show the positive relationship between 

diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer 

across a variety of diesel exhaustexposed occupations.31,32

In the absence of a cancer unit risk, 

the Diesel HAD sought to provide 

additional insight into the significance 

of the diesel exhaust-cancer hazard by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44452 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

33 Ishinishi, N. Kuwabara, N. Takaki, Y., et al. 

(1988) Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel 

exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust and health risks. Results 

of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research 

Committee for HERP Studies; pp. 11–84. 

34Henrich, U., Fuhst, R., Rittinghausen, S., et al. 

(1995). Chronic inhalation exposure of Wistar rats 

and two different strains of mice to diesel engine 

exhaust, carbon black, and titanium dioxide. Inhal 

Toxicol, 7, 553–556. 

35Mauderly, J.L., Jones, R.K., Griffith, W.C., et al. 

(1987). Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in 

rats exposted chronically by inhalation. Fundam. 

Appl. Toxicol., 9, 208–221. 

36Nikula, K.J., Snipes, M.B., Barr, E.B., et al. 

(1995). Comparative pulmonary toxicities and 

carcinogenicities of chronically inhaled diesel 

exhaust and carbon black in F344 rats. Fundam. 

Appl. Toxicol, 25, 80–94. 

37U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document 

for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–90/057F 

Office of Research and Development, Washington 

DC. Retrieved on March 17, 2009 from http://cfpub.

epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. p. 

9–9. 

38 Di, P., Servin, A., Rosenkranz, K., Schwehr, B., 

Tran, H., (2006). Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure 

Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach. Sacramento, CA: California EPA, 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). Retrieved 

March 19, 2009 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ 

marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf. 

39 ICF International. September 28, 2007. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter 

concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and 

rail yards. Memorandum to EPA under Work 

Assignment Number 0–3, Contract Number EP–C– 

06–094. This memo is available in Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

40 ICF International. September 28, 2007. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter population 

exposure near selected harbor areas and rail yards. 

Memorandum to EPA under Work Assignment 

Number 0–3, Contract Number EP–C–06–094. This 

memo is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121. 

41 ICF International, December 10, 2008. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter population 

exposure near selected harbor areas with revised 

harbor emissions. Memorandum to EPA under 

Work Assignment Number 2–9. Contract Number 

estimating possible ranges of risk that 

might be present in the population. An 

exploratory analysis was used to 

characterize a possible risk range by 

comparing a typical environmental 

exposure level for highway diesel 

sources to a selected range of 

occupational exposure levels. The 

occupationally observed risks were then 

proportionally scaled according to the 

exposure ratios to obtain an estimate of 

the possible environmental risk. A 

number of calculations are needed to 

accomplish this, and these can be seen 

in the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome 

was that environmental risks from 

diesel exhaust exposure could range 

from a low of 10¥4 to 10¥5 to as high 

as 10¥3, reflecting the range of 

occupational exposures that could be 

associated with the relative and absolute 

risk levels observed in the occupational 

studies. Because of uncertainties, the 

analysis acknowledged that the risks 

could be lower than 10¥4 or 10¥5, and 

a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure 

was not ruled out. 

(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects 

Noncancer health effects of acute and 

chronic exposure to diesel exhaust 

emissions are also of concern to the 

EPA. EPA derived a diesel exhaust 

reference concentration (RfC) from 

consideration of four well-conducted 

chronic rat inhalation studies showing 

adverse pulmonary effects.33,34,35,36 The 

RfC is 5 μg/m 3 for diesel exhaust as 

measured by DPM. This RfC does not 

consider allergenic effects such as those 

associated with asthma or immunologic 

effects. There is growing evidence, 

discussed in the Diesel HAD, that 

exposure to diesel exhaust can 

exacerbate these effects, but the 

exposure-response data are presently 

lacking to derive an RfC. The EPA 

Diesel HAD states, ‘‘With DPM [diesel 

particulate matter] being a ubiquitous 

component of ambient PM, there is an 

uncertainty about the adequacy of the 

existing DE [diesel exhaust] noncancer 

database to identify all of the pertinent 

DE-caused noncancer health hazards.’’ 

(p. 9–19). The Diesel HAD concludes 

‘‘that acute exposure to DE [diesel 

exhaust] has been associated with 

irritation of the eye, nose, and throat, 

respiratory symptoms (cough and 

phlegm), and neurophysiological 

symptoms such as headache, 

lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, and 

numbness or tingling of the 

extremities.’’37

(iii) Ambient PM2.5 Levels and Exposure 

to Diesel Exhaust PM 

The Diesel HAD also briefly 

summarizes health effects associated 

with ambient PM and discusses the 

EPA’s annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/ 

m 3. There is a much more extensive 

body of human data showing a wide 

spectrum of adverse health effects 

associated with exposure to ambient 

PM, of which diesel exhaust is an 

important component. The PM2.5

NAAQS is designed to provide 

protection from the noncancer and 

premature mortality effects of PM2.5 as 

a whole. 

(iv) Diesel Exhaust PM Exposures 

Exposure of people to diesel exhaust 

depends on their various activities, the 

time spent in those activities, the 

locations where these activities occur, 

and the levels of diesel exhaust 

pollutants in those locations. The major 

difference between ambient levels of 

diesel particulate and exposure levels 

for diesel particulate is that exposure 

accounts for a person moving from 

location to location, proximity to the 

emission source, and whether the 

exposure occurs in an enclosed 

environment. 

Occupational Exposures 

Occupational exposures to diesel 

exhaust from mobile sources, including 

marine diesel engines, can be several 

orders of magnitude greater than typical 

exposures in the non-occupationally 

exposed population. 

Over the years, diesel particulate 

exposures have been measured for a 

number of occupational groups. A wide 

range of exposures have been reported, 

from 2 μg/m 3 to 1,280 μg/m 3, for a 

variety of occupations. As discussed in 

the Diesel HAD, the National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) has estimated a total of 

1,400,000 workers are occupationally 

exposed to diesel exhaust from on-road 

and nonroad vehicles including marine 

diesel engines. 

Elevated Concentrations and Ambient 

Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted 

Areas 

Regions immediately downwind of 

marine ports may experience elevated 

ambient concentrations of directlyemitted PM2.5 from diesel engines. Due 

to the unique nature of marine ports, 

emissions from a large number of diesel 

engines are concentrated in a small area. 

A 2006 study from the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) evaluated air 

quality impacts of diesel engine 

emissions within the Ports of Long 

Beach and Los Angeles in California, 

one of the largest ports in the U.S.38 The 

port study employed the ISCST3 

dispersion model. With local 

meteorological data used in the 

modeling, annual average 

concentrations were substantially 

elevated over an area exceeding 200,000 

acres. Because the ports are located near 

heavily-populated areas, the modeling 

indicated that over 700,000 people lived 

in areas with at least 0.3 μg/m 3 of portrelated diesel PM in ambient air, about 

360,000 people lived in areas with at 

least 0.6 μg/m 3 of diesel PM, and about 

50,000 people lived in areas with at 

least 1.5 μg/m 3, of ambient diesel PM 

directly from the port. This study 

highlights the substantial contribution 

ports can make to elevated ambient 

concentrations in populated areas. 

EPA recently updated its initial 

screening-level analysis of a 

representative selection of national 

marine port areas to better understand 

the populations that are exposed to 

DPM emissions from these 

facilities.39, 40, 41, 42 As part of this study, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44453 

EP–C–06–094. This memo is available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 42 ICF International. December 1, 2008. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter 

concentration isopleths near selected harbor areas 

with revised emissions. Memorandum to EPA 

under Work Assignment Number 1–9. Contract 

Number EP–C–06–094. This memo is available in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 43The Agency selected a representative sample 

from the top 150 U.S. ports including coastal, 

inland, and Great Lake ports. 

44U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone 

and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/ 

600/R–05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0190 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. 

45U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone 

and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/ 

600/R–05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0190 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. 

46U.S. EPA (2007). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy 

Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–452/R–07– 

003. Washsington, DC, U.S. EPA. Retrieved on 

March 19, 2009 from Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003– 

0190 at http://www.regulations.gov/. 

47National Research Council (NRC), 2008. 

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic 

Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The 

National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 

48U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria 

(Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/071. Washington, 

DC: U.S.EPA. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?

deid=194645. 

a computer geographic information 

system (GIS) was used to identify the 

locations and property boundaries of 45 

marine ports.43 Census information was 

used to estimate the size and 

demographic characteristics of the 

population living in the vicinity of the 

ports. The results indicate that at least 

18 million people, including a 

disproportionate number of low-income 

households, African-Americans, and 

Hispanics, live in the vicinity of these 

facilities and are being exposed to 

ambient DPM levels that are 2.0 μg/m 3

and 0.2 μg/m 3 above levels found in 

areas further from these facilities. These 

populations will benefit from the 

combination of the proposed CAA 

standards along with ECA designations 

through MARPOL Annex VI. This study 

is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 

2 of the draft RIA and detailed findings 

of this study are available in the public 

docket for this rulemaking. 

(2) Ozone 

(a) Background 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

typically formed by the reaction of VOC 

and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the 

presence of heat and sunlight. These 

pollutants, often referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of 

pollution sources, such as highway and 

nonroad motor vehicles and engines, 

power plants, chemical plants, 

refineries, makers of consumer and 

commercial products, industrial 

facilities, and smaller area sources. 

The science of ozone formation, 

transport, and accumulation is 

complex.44 Ground-level ozone is 

produced and destroyed in a cyclical set 

of chemical reactions, many of which 

are sensitive to temperature and 

sunlight. When ambient temperatures 

and sunlight levels remain high for 

several days and the air is relatively 

stagnant, ozone and its precursors can 

build up and result in more ozone than 

typically occurs on a single hightemperature day. Ozone can be 

transported hundreds of miles 

downwind from precursor emissions, 

resulting in elevated ozone levels even 

in areas with low local VOC or NOX

emissions. 

(b) Health Effects of Ozone 

The health and welfare effects of 

ozone are well documented and are 

assessed in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality 

Criteria Document (ozone AQCD) and 

2007 Staff Paper.45,46 Ozone can irritate 

the respiratory system, causing 

coughing, throat irritation, and/or 

uncomfortable sensation in the chest. 

Ozone can reduce lung function and 

make it more difficult to breathe deeply; 

breathing may also become more rapid 

and shallow than normal, thereby 

limiting a person’s activity. Ozone can 

also aggravate asthma, leading to more 

asthma attacks that require medical 

attention and/or the use of additional 

medication. In addition, there is 

suggestive evidence of a contribution of 

ozone to cardiovascular-related 

morbidity and highly suggestive 

evidence that short-term ozone exposure 

directly or indirectly contributes to nonaccidental and cardiopulmonary-related 

mortality, but additional research is 

needed to clarify the underlying 

mechanisms causing these effects. In a 

recent report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published 

by the National Research Council (NRC), 

a panel of experts and reviewers 

concluded that short-term exposure to 

ambient ozone is likely to contribute to 

premature deaths and that ozone-related 

mortality should be included in 

estimates of the health benefits of 

reducing ozone exposure.47 Animal 

toxicological evidence indicates that 

with repeated exposure, ozone can 

inflame and damage the lining of the 

lungs, which may lead to permanent 

changes in lung tissue and irreversible 

reductions in lung function. People who 

are more susceptible to effects 

associated with exposure to ozone can 

include children, the elderly, and 

individuals with respiratory disease 

such as asthma. Those with greater 

exposures to ozone, for instance due to 

time spent outdoors (e.g., children and 

outdoor workers), are of particular 

concern. 

The 2006 ozone AQCD also examined 

relevant new scientific information that 

has emerged in the past decade, 

including the impact of ozone exposure 

on such health effects as changes in 

lung structure and biochemistry, 

inflammation of the lungs, exacerbation 

and causation of asthma, respiratory 

illness-related school absence, hospital 

admissions and premature mortality. 

Animal toxicological studies have 

suggested potential interactions between 

ozone and PM with increased responses 

observed to mixtures of the two 

pollutants compared to either ozone or 

PM alone. The respiratory morbidity 

observed in animal studies along with 

the evidence from epidemiologic studies 

supports a causal relationship between 

acute ambient ozone exposures and 

increased respiratory-related emergency 

room visits and hospitalizations in the 

warm season. In addition, there is 

suggestive evidence of a contribution of 

ozone to cardiovascular-related 

morbidity and non-accidental and 

cardiopulmonary mortality. 

(3) NOX and SOX

(a) Background 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of 

the NOX family of gases. Most NO2 is 

formed in the air through the oxidation 

of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel 

is burned at a high temperature. SO2, a 

member of the sulfur oxide (SOX) family 

of gases, is formed from burning fuels 

containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil 

derived), extracting gasoline from oil, or 

extracting metals from ore. 

SO2 and NO2 can dissolve in water 

vapor and further oxidize to form 

sulfuric and nitric acid which react with 

ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates, 

both of which are important 

components of ambient PM. The health 

effects of ambient PM are discussed in 

Section II.A.1 of this preamble. NOX

along with non-methane hydrocarbon 

(NMHC) are the two major precursors of 

ozone. The health effects of ozone are 

covered in Section II.A.2. 

(b) Health Effects of NOX

Information on the health effects of 

NO2 can be found in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for 

Nitrogen Oxides.48 The U.S. EPA has 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44454 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

49U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science 

Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides—Health 

Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/047F. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?

deid=198843 

50 Dillman, K., Geiser, L., & Brenner, G. (2007). 

Air Quality Bio-Monitoring with Lichens. The 

Togass National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 

Retrieved March 18, 2009 from http://gis.nacse.org/ 

lichenair/?page=reports. 

51U.S. EPA. (2008). Nitrogen Dioxide/Sulfur 

Dioxide Secondary NAAQS Review: Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=180903 

concluded that the findings of 

epidemiologic, controlled human 

exposure, and animal toxicological 

studies provide evidence that is 

sufficient to infer a likely causal 

relationship between respiratory effects 

and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA 

concludes that the strongest evidence 

for such a relationship comes from 

epidemiologic studies of respiratory 

effects including symptoms, emergency 

department visits, and hospital 

admissions. The ISA also draws two 

broad conclusions regarding airway 

responsiveness following NO2 exposure. 

First, the ISA concludes that NO2

exposure may enhance the sensitivity to 

allergen-induced decrements in lung 

function and increase the allergeninduced airway inflammatory response 

at exposures as low as 0.26 ppm NO2 for 

30 minutes. Second, exposure to NO2

has been found to enhance the inherent 

responsiveness of the airway to 

subsequent nonspecific challenges in 

controlled human exposure studies of 

asthmatic subjects. Enhanced airway 

responsiveness could have important 

clinical implications for asthmatics 

since transient increases in airway 

responsiveness following NO2 exposure 

have the potential to increase symptoms 

and worsen asthma control. Together, 

the epidemiologic and experimental 

data sets form a plausible, consistent, 

and coherent description of a 

relationship between NO2 exposures 

and an array of adverse health effects 

that range from the onset of respiratory 

symptoms to hospital admission. 

Although the weight of evidence 

supporting a causal relationship is 

somewhat less certain than that 

associated with respiratory morbidity, 

NO2 has also been linked to other health 

endpoints. These include all-cause 

(nonaccidental) mortality, hospital 

admissions or emergency department 

visits for cardiovascular disease, and 

decrements in lung function growth 

associated with chronic exposure. 

(c) Health Effects of SOX

Information on the health effects of 

SO2 can be found in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Integrated Science Assessment for 

Sulfur Oxides.49 SO2 has long been 

known to cause adverse respiratory 

health effects, particularly among 

individuals with asthma. Other 

potentially sensitive groups include 

children and the elderly. During periods 

of elevated ventilation, asthmatics may 

experience symptomatic 

bronchoconstriction within minutes of 

exposure. Following an extensive 

evaluation of health evidence from 

epidemiologic and laboratory studies, 

the EPA has concluded that there is a 

causal relationship between respiratory 

health effects and short-term exposure 

to SO2. Separately, based on an 

evaluation of the epidemiologic 

evidence of associations between shortterm exposure to SO2 and mortality, the 

EPA has concluded that the overall 

evidence is suggestive of a causal 

relationship between short-term 

exposure to SO2 and mortality. 

B. Environmental Impacts 

(1) Deposition of Nitrogen and Sulfur 

Emissions of NOX and SOX from ships 

contribute to atmospheric deposition of 

nitrogen and sulfur in the U.S. 

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and 

sulfur contributes to acidification, 

altering biogeochemistry and affecting 

animal and plant life in terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems across the U.S. The 

sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems to acidification from 

nitrogen and sulfur deposition is 

predominantly governed by geology. 

Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen 

and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas 

acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. 

Increased acidity in surface waters 

creates inhospitable conditions for biota 

and affects the abundance and 

nutritional value of preferred prey 

species, threatening biodiversity and 

ecosystem function. Over time, 

acidifying deposition also removes 

essential nutrients from forest soils, 

depleting the capacity of soils to 

neutralize future acid loadings and 

negatively affecting forest sustainability. 

Major effects include a decline in 

sensitive forest tree species, such as red 

spruce (Picea rubens) and sugar maple 

(Acer saccharum), and a loss of 

biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton, and 

macro invertebrates. 

In addition to the role nitrogen 

deposition plays in acidification, 

nitrogen deposition also causes 

ecosystem nutrient enrichment leading 

to eutrophication that alters 

biogeochemical cycles. Excess nitrogen 

also leads to the loss of nitrogen 

sensitive lichen species as they are 

outcompeted by invasive grasses as well 

as altering the biodiversity of terrestrial 

ecosystems, such as grasslands and 

meadows. Nitrogen deposition 

contributes to eutrophication of 

estuaries and the associated effects 

including toxic algal blooms and fish 

kills. For a broader explanation of the 

topics treated here, refer to the 

description in Section 2.3.1 of the draft 

RIA. 

There are a number of important 

quantified relationships between 

nitrogen deposition levels and 

ecological effects. Certain lichen species 

are the most sensitive terrestrial taxa to 

nitrogen with species losses occurring at 

just 3 kg N/ha/yr in the Pacific 

Northwest, southern California and 

Alaska. A United States Forest Service 

study conducted in areas within the 

Tongass Forest in Southeast Alaska 

found evidence of sulfur emissions 

impacting lichen communities.50 The 

authors concluded that the main source 

of nitrogen and sulfur found in lichens 

from Mt. Roberts (directly north of the 

City of Juneau in southeastern Alaska) is 

likely the burning of fossil fuels by 

cruise ships and other vehicles and 

equipment in Juneau. 

Lichen are an important food source 

for caribou. This is causing concern 

about the potential role damage to 

lichens may be having on the Southern 

Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd, which 

is an important food source to local 

subsistence-based cultures. This herd 

has been decreasing in size, exhibiting 

both poor calf survival and low 

pregnancy rates, which are signs of 

dietary stress. Currently, there is a 

complete caribou hunting ban, 

including a ban on subsistence hunting. 

Across the U.S., there are many 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that 

have been identified as particularly 

sensitive to nitrogen deposition. The 

most extreme effects resulting from 

nitrogen deposition on aquatic 

ecosystems are due to nitrogen 

enrichment which contributes to 

‘‘hypoxic’’ zones devoid of life. Three 

hypoxia zones of special concern in the 

U.S. are the zones located in the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay in the midAtlantic region, and Long Island Sound 

in the northeast U.S.51

(2) Deposition of Particulate Matter and 

Air Toxics 

The combination of the proposed 

CAA NOX standards along with ECA 

designation through amendment to 

MARPOL Annex VI would reduce NOX, 

SOX, and PM2.5 emissions from ships. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44455 

52Agrawal H., Malloy Q.G.J., Welch W.A., Wayne 

Miller J., Cocker III D.R. (2008) In-use gaseous and 

particulate matter emissions from a modern ocean 

going container vessel. Atmospheric Environment, 

42(21), 5504–5510. 53Miller, W., et al. (2008 June 10). Measuring 

Emissions from Ocean Going Vessels. Presentation 

presented at the Fuel, Engines, and Control Devices 

Workshop, San Pedro, California. 54 Isakson J., Persson T.A., E. Selin Lindgren E. 

(2001) Identification and assessment of ship 

emissions and their effects in the harbour of 

Gteborg, Sweeden. Atmospheric Environment, 

35(21), 3659–3666. 55U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 

56U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 

57 Gawel, J. E.; Ahner, B. A.; Friedland, A. J.; 

Morel, F. M. M. (1996) Role for heavy metals in 

forest decline indicated by phytochelatin 

measurements. Nature (London), 381, 64–65. 

58U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 

59Cotrufo M.F., De Santo A.V., Alfani A., Bartoli 

G., De Cristofaro A. (1995) Effects of urban heavy 

metal pollution on organic matter decomposition in 

Quercus ilex L. Woods. Environmental Pollution, 

89(1), 81–87. 60Niklinska M., Laskowski R., Maryanski M. 

(1998). Effect of heavy metals and storage time on 

two types of forest litter: basal respiration rate and 

exchangeable metals. Ecotoxicological 

Environmental Safety, 41, 8–18. 61U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (AQCD). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 62 Dickhut R.M., Canuel E.A., Gustafson K.E., Liu 

K., Arzayus K.M., Walker S.E., Edgecombe G., 

Gaylor M.O., MacDonald E.H. (2000). Automotive 

Sources of Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons Associated with Particulate Matter in 

the Chesapeake Bay Region. Environmental Science 

& Technology, 34(21), 4635–4640. 63Simcik M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Golden K.A., et 

al. (1996) Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan as 

Recorded in the Sediments. Environmental Science 

and Technology, 30, 3039–3046. 64Simcik M.F., Eisenreich S.J., Lioy P.J. (1999) 

Source apportionment and source/sink relationship 

of PAHs in the coastal atmosphere of Chicago and 

Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment, 33, 

5071–5079. 65Poor N., Tremblay R., Kay H., et al. (2002) 

Atmospheric concentrations and dry deposition 

rates of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 

for Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Atmospheric 

Environment, 38, 6005–6015. 66Arzavus K.M., Dickhut R.M., Canuel E.A. 

(2001) Fate of Atmospherically Deposited 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in 

Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Science & 

Technology, 35, 2178–2183. 67Simcik M.F., Eisenreich, S.J., Golden K.A., et 

al. (1996) Atmospheric Loading of Polycyclic 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Lake Michigan as 

Recorded in the Sediments. Environmental Science 

and Technology, 30, 3039–3046. 

68Simcik M.F., Eisenreich S.J., Lioy P.J. (1999) 

Source apportionment and source/sink relationship 

of PAHs in the coastal atmosphere of Chicago and 

Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment, 33, 

5071–5079. 

69U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and 

Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. 

Retrieved on April 9, 2009 from http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/

pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf. 

70U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (AQCD). Volume I Document No. 

EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document No. 

EPA600/P–99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 

Ship emissions of PM2.5 contain small 

amounts of metals: nickel, vanadium, 

cadmium, iron, lead, copper, zinc, 

aluminum.52 53 54 Investigations of trace 

metals near roadways and industrial 

facilities indicate that a substantial 

burden of heavy metals can accumulate 

on vegetative surfaces. Copper, zinc, 

and nickel are directly toxic to 

vegetation under field conditions.55

While metals typically exhibit low 

solubility, limiting their bioavailability 

and direct toxicity, chemical 

transformations of metal compounds 

occur in the environment, particularly 

in the presence of acidic or other 

oxidizing species. These chemical 

changes influence the mobility and 

toxicity of metals in the environment. 

Once taken up into plant tissue, a metal 

compound can undergo chemical 

changes, accumulate and be passed 

along to herbivores, or can re-enter the 

soil and further cycle in the 

environment. 

Although there has been no direct 

evidence of a physiological association 

between tree injury and heavy metal 

exposures, heavy metals have been 

implicated because of similarities 

between metal deposition patterns and 

forest decline.56 57 This correlation was 

further explored in high elevation 

forests in the northeast U.S. and the data 

strongly imply that metal stress causes 

tree injury and contributes to forest 

decline in the Northeast.58

Contamination of plant leaves by heavy 

metals can lead to elevated soil levels. 

Trace metals absorbed into the plant 

frequently bind to the leaf tissue, and 

then are lost when the leaf drops. As the 

fallen leaves decompose, the heavy 

metals are transferred into the soil.59 60

Ships also emit air toxics, including 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs), a class of polycyclic organic 

matter (POM) that contains compounds 

which are known or suspected 

carcinogens. Since the majority of PAHs 

are adsorbed onto particles less than 1.0 

μm in diameter, long range transport is 

possible. Particles of this size can 

remain airborne for days or even months 

and travel distances up to 10,000 km 

before being deposited on terrestrial or 

aquatic surfaces.61 Atmospheric 

deposition of particles is believed to be 

the major source of PAHs to the 

sediments of Lake Michigan, 

Chesapeake Bay, Tampa Bay and other 

coastal areas of the U.S.62 63 64 65 66 PAHs 

tend to accumulate in sediments and 

reach high enough concentrations in 

some coastal environments to pose an 

environmental health threat that 

includes cancer in fish populations, 

toxicity to organisms living in the 

sediment, and risks to those (e.g., 

migratory birds) that consume these 

organisms.67 68 PAHs tend to accumulate 

in sediments and bioaccumulate in fresh 

water, flora and fauna. 

The deposition of airborne particles 

can reduce the aesthetic appeal of 

buildings and culturally important 

articles through soiling, and can 

contribute directly (or in conjunction 

with other pollutants) to structural 

damage by means of corrosion or 

erosion.69 Particles affect materials 

principally by promoting and 

accelerating the corrosion of metals, by 

degrading paints, and by deteriorating 

building materials such as concrete and 

limestone. Particles contribute to these 

effects because of their electrolytic, 

hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and 

their ability to adsorb corrosive gases 

(principally sulfur dioxide). The rate of 

metal corrosion depends on a number of 

factors, including the deposition rate 

and nature of the pollutant; the 

influence of the metal protective 

corrosion film; the amount of moisture 

present; variability in the 

electrochemical reactions; the presence 

and concentration of other surface 

electrolytes; and the orientation of the 

metal surface. 

(3) Impacts on Visibility 

Emissions from ships contribute to 

poor visibility in the U.S. through their 

primary PM2.5 emissions, as well as NOX

and SOX emissions which contribute to 

the formation of secondary PM2.5.70

Visibility can be defined as the degree 

to which the atmosphere is transparent 

to visible light. Airborne particles 

degrade visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility is important 

because it has direct significance to 

people’s enjoyment of daily activities in 

all parts of the country. Individuals 

value good visibility for the well-being 

it provides them directly where they 

live and work and in places where they 

enjoy recreational opportunities. 

Visibility is also highly valued in 

significant natural areas such as 

national parks and wilderness areas, 

and special emphasis is given to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

71U.S. EPA. (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (AQCD). Volume I Document No. 

EPA600/P–99/002aF and Volume II Document No. 

EPA600/P–99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on 

March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/

cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903 

72U.S. EPA. (2005). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate 

Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and 

Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA– 

452/R–05–005. Washington, DC: US Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

73These areas are defined in section 162 of the 

Act as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 

5,000 acres, and all international parks which were 

in existence on August 7, 1977. 

74As discussed in Section 3.7 of the draft RIA, 

the inventories used for the air quality modeling in 

2020 and 2030 differ slightly from each other. The 

difference between 2020 and 2030 is small and was 

due to an error in calculating the 200 nautical miles 

distance. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.7 of 

the draft RIA, the 2020 air quality control case does 

not include global controls for areas that are beyond 

200 nautical miles but within the air quality 

modeling domain. The impact of this latter 

difference is expected to be minimal. 

75As explained in the NPRM, there were no 

acceptable procedures for measuring PM from 

Category 3 marine engines. Specifically, established 

PM test methods showed unacceptable variability 

when sulfur levels exceed 0.8 weight percent, 

which was common at that time for both residual 

and distillate marine fuels for Category 3 engines, 

and no PM test method or calculation methodology 

had been developed to correct that variability for 

these engines. 

76See the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making at Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121. 

protecting visibility in these areas. For 

more information on visibility, see the 

final 2004 PM AQCD as well as the 2005 

PM Staff Paper.71, 72

EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to 

address visibility. First, to address the 

welfare effects of PM on visibility, EPA 

has set secondary PM2.5 standards 

which act in conjunction with the 

establishment of a regional haze 

program. In setting this secondary 

standard, EPA has concluded that PM2.5

causes adverse effects on visibility in 

various locations, depending on PM 

concentrations and factors such as 

chemical composition and average 

relative humidity. Second, section 169 

of the Clean Air Act provides additional 

authority to address existing visibility 

impairment and prevent future visibility 

impairment in the 156 national parks, 

forests and wilderness areas categorized 

as mandatory class I Federal areas (62 

FR 38680–81, July 18, 1997).73 In July 

1999, the regional haze rule (64 FR 

35714) was put in place to protect the 

visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas. Visibility can be said to be 

impaired in both PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas and mandatory class I Federal 

areas. 

(4) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of 

Ozone 

Elevated ozone levels contribute to 

environmental effects, with impacts to 

plants and ecosystems being of most 

concern. Ozone can produce both acute 

and chronic injury in sensitive species 

depending on the concentration level 

and the duration of the exposure. Ozone 

effects also tend to accumulate over the 

growing season of the plant, so that even 

low concentrations experienced for a 

longer duration have the potential to 

create chronic stress on vegetation. 

Ozone damage to plants includes visible 

injury to leaves and a reduction in food 

production through impaired 

photosynthesis, both of which can lead 

to reduced crop yields, forestry 

production, and use of sensitive 

ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, 

the reduced food production in plants 

and subsequent reduced root growth 

and storage below ground, can result in 

other, more subtle plant and ecosystems 

impacts. These include increased 

susceptibility of plants to insect attack, 

disease, harsh weather, interspecies 

competition and overall decreased plant 

vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on 

forest and other natural vegetation can 

potentially lead to species shifts and 

loss from the affected ecosystems, 

resulting in a loss or reduction in 

associated ecosystem goods and 

services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to 

leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic 

value in areas of special scenic 

significance like national parks and 

wilderness areas. The final 2006 ozone 

AQCD presents more detailed 

information on ozone effects on 

vegetation and ecosystems. 

C. Air Quality Modeling Results 

Air quality modeling was performed 

to assess the impact of the combination 

of the proposed CAA NOX standards 

along with ECA designation through 

Amendment to MARPOL Annex VI. We 

looked at impacts on future ambient 

PM2.5 and ozone levels, as well as 

nitrogen and sulfur deposition levels 

and visibility impairment. In this 

section, we present information on 

current levels of pollution as well as 

model projected levels of pollution for 

2020 and 2030.74

The air quality modeling uses EPA’s 

Community Multiscale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) model. The CMAQ modeling 

domain is rectangular in shape and 

encompasses all of the lower 48 states, 

portions of Canada and Mexico, and 

areas extending into the ocean up to 

1,000 nautical miles (nm), depending on 

the coast. The smallest area of ocean 

coverage is over the northeast U.S. In 

places like Maine and Cape Cod, the 

easternmost points of the contiguous 

U.S., the distance to the edge of the 

CMAQ modeling domain is 

approximately 150 nm. The rest of the 

U.S. shoreline has at least 200 nm 

between the shoreline and boundary of 

the air quality modeling. The CMAQ 

modeling domain is described in more 

detail in Section 2.4.5.2 of the draft RIA. 

The performance of the CMAQ 

modeling was evaluated over a 2002 

base case. More detail about the 

performance evaluation is contained 

within the Section 2.4.5.4 of the draft 

RIA. The model was able to reproduce 

historical concentrations of ozone and 

PM2.5 over the land with low amounts 

of bias and error. While we are not able 

to evaluate the model’s performance 

over the ocean, there is no evidence to 

suggest that model performance is 

unsatisfactory over the ocean. 

(1) Particulate Matter 

The vast majority of PM emissions 

from Category 3 engines are the result of 

the sulfur content of the residual fuel 

they use (67 FR 37569, May 29, 2002).75

Although this proposed rule would not 

set PM standards, ECA designation 

would require the use of fuel meeting 

the most stringent MARPOL Annex VI 

fuel sulfur limits, yielding significant 

PM and SOX reductions. 

(a) Current Levels 

PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the 

level of the PM2.5 NAAQS occur in 

many parts of the country. In 2005, EPA 

designated 39 nonattainment areas for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 943, 

January 5, 2005). These areas are 

composed of 208 full or partial counties 

with a total population exceeding 88 

million. The 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was 

recently revised and the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on 

December 18, 2006. Area designations 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

expected to be promulgated in 2009 and 

become effective 90 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

(b) Projected Levels 

A number of state governments have 

told EPA that they need the reductions 

the coordinated strategy will provide in 

order to meet and maintain the PM2.5

NAAQS.76 Most areas designated as not 

attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will 

need to attain the 1997 standards in the 

2010 to 2015 time frame, and then 

maintain them thereafter. The 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be 

required to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 time 

frame and then be required to maintain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44457 

77See Section 2.4.1.2.2 of the draft RIA, 

specifically Table 2–9, for more detail. 

78Note that the 2030 projections are based on a 

100 nm ECA so are an underestimate of likely 

changes to PM2.5 design values. Additional detail on 

the air quality modeling is included in Chapter 2 

of the draft RIA. 

thereafter. The fuel sulfur emission 

standards will become effective in 2010 

and 2015, and the NOX engine emission 

standards will become effective in 2016. 

Therefore, the coordinated strategy 

emission reductions will be useful to 

states in attaining or maintaining the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels 

and which will assist in reducing the 

number of areas that fail to achieve the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Even so, our air quality 

modeling for this proposal projects that 

in 2020, with all current controls but 

excluding the reductions expected to 

occur as a result of the coordinated 

strategy, that at least 13 counties with a 

population of almost 30 million may not 

attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 

15 μg/m 3.77 These numbers do not 

account for additional areas that have 

air quality measurements above the 

2006 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3. The 

numbers also do not account for those 

areas that are close to (e.g., within 10 

percent of) the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5

standard. These areas, although not 

violating the standards, will also benefit 

from the additional reductions from this 

rule ensuring long term maintenance of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Air quality analysis modeling the 

expected impacts of the coordinated 

strategy shows that in 2020 and 2030 all 

of the modeled counties would 

experience decreases in their annual 

PM2.5 design values. For areas with 

current annual PM2.5 design values 

greater than 15 μg/m3, the modeled 

future-year, population-weighted annual 

PM2.5 design values are expected to 

decrease on average by 0.8 μg/m3 in 

2020 and by 1.7 μg/m3 in 2030.78 The 

maximum decrease for annual PM2.5

design values are projected to be in 

Miami, FL, with a 3.1 μg/m3 decrease 

for 2020 and a 6.0 μg/m3 decrease for 

2030. The air quality modeling 

methodology and the projected 

reductions are discussed in more detail 

in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. 

(2) Ozone 

(a) Current Levels 

The U.S. EPA has recently amended 

the ozone NAAQS (73 FR 16436, March 

27, 2008). That final 2008 ozone 

NAAQS rule set forth revisions to the 

previous 1997 NAAQS for ozone to 

provide increased protection of public 

health and welfare. As of March 4, 2009, 

there are 57 areas designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, comprising 293 full or 

partial counties with a total population 

of approximately 132 million people. 

These numbers do not include the 

people living in areas where there is a 

future risk of failing to maintain or 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

The numbers above likely 

underestimate the number of counties 

that are not meeting the ozone NAAQS 

because the nonattainment areas 

associated with the more stringent 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS have not yet been 

designated. Table II–1 provides an 

estimate, based on 2005–07 air quality 

data, of the counties with design values 

greater than the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. 

TABLE II–1—COUNTIES WITH DESIGN VALUES GREATER THAN THE 2008 OZONE NAAQS BASED ON 2005–2007 AIR

QUALITY DATA

Number of 

counties Population a

1997 Ozone Standard: counties within the 57 areas currently designated as nonattainment (as of 4/3/09) ........ 293 131,977,890 

2008 Ozone Standard: additional counties that would not meet the 2008 NAAQSb ............................................. 227 41,285,262 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 520 173,263,152 

Notes: 

aPopulation numbers are from 2000 census data. 

bAttainment designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS have not yet been made. Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS will be based on 

three years of air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in this row include only the counties with monitors violating the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS. The numbers in this table may be an underestimate of the number of counties and populations that will eventually be included in 

areas with multiple counties designated nonattainment. 

(b) Projected Levels (Including Ozone 

Welfare) 

States with 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas are required to take 

action to bring those areas into 

compliance in the future. Based on the 

final rule designating and classifying 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment areas for the 

1997 standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 

2004), most 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas will be required to attain the 

ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time 

frame and then maintain the NAAQS 

thereafter. Many of these nonattainment 

areas will need to adopt additional 

emission reduction programs, and the 

NOX and VOC reductions that would 

result from the combination of the 

proposed CAA NOX standards along 

with ECA designation through 

amendment to MARPOL Annex VI 

would be particularly important for 

these states. In addition, EPA’s revision 

of the ozone NAAQS was completed 

with the final rule published on March 

27, 2008. The ozone NAAQS revision in 

2008 started the process for 

nonattainment areas to be designated 

under that standard. While EPA is not 

relying on the 2008 standard for 

purposes of justifying this rule, the 

emission reductions from this 

rulemaking will also be helpful to states 

for the more stringent ozone NAAQS. 

EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient ozone levels 

and assist in reducing the number of 

areas that fail to achieve the ozone 

NAAQS. Even so, our air quality 

modeling projects that in 2020, with all 

current controls but excluding the 

reductions achieved through the 

coordinated strategy, up to 50 counties 

with a population of almost 50 million 

may not attain the 2008 ozone standard 

of 0.075 ppm. These numbers do not 

account for those areas that are close to 

(e.g., within 10 percent of) the 2008 

ozone standard. These areas, although 

not violating the standards, will also 

benefit from the additional reductions 

from this rule ensuring long-term 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

79Note that the 2030 projections are based on a 

100 nm ECA so are an underestimate of likely 

changes to ozone design values. Additional detail 

on the air quality modeling is included in Chapter 

2 of the draft RIA. 

80Chappelka, AH, Samuelson, LJ. (1998). 

Ambient ozone effects on forest trees of the Eastern 

United States: a review. New Phytologist, 139, 91– 

108. 81Note that while the coordinated strategy does 

not eliminate ship emissions, it will be 

directionally helpful in reducing ship emissions. 82Prasad, A.M, Iverson L.R. (2003). Little’s range 

and FIA importance value database for 135 eastern 

US tree species. Northeastern Research Station, 

USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio. [online] 

Retrieved on March 19, 2009 from http://

www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/4153/global/littlefia/

index.html. 

83Heck W.W., Cowling E.B. (1997) The need for 

a Long Term Cumulative Secondary Ozone 

Standard—an Ecological Perspective. Air and Waste 

Management Association, EM, 23–33. 

These air quality modeling results 

suggest that the proposed emission 

reductions would improve both the 

average and population-weighted 

average ozone concentrations for the 

U.S. in 2020 and 2030. In addition, the 

air quality modeling shows that on 

average the coordinated program 

described in this action would help 

bring counties closer to ozone 

attainment as well as assist counties 

whose ozone concentrations are within 

10 percent below the standard. For 

example, in projected nonattainment 

counties, on a population-weighted 

basis, the 8-hour ozone design value 

will on average decrease by 0.5 ppb in 

2020 and 1.6 ppb in 2030.79 The air 

quality modeling methodology and the 

projected reductions are discussed in 

more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft 

RIA. 

It should be noted that even though 

our air quality modeling predicts 

important reductions in nationwide 

ozone levels, four counties (of 661 that 

have monitored data) are expected to 

experience an increase in their ozone 

design values in 2030. There are two 

counties in southern California, Orange 

County and San Bernardino County, and 

two counties in Washington, Clallam 

County and Clark County, which would 

experience 8-hour ozone design value 

increases due to the NOX disbenefits 

which occur in these VOC-limited 

ozone nonattainment areas. Briefly, NOX

reductions at certain times and in some 

areas can lead to increased ozone levels. 

The air quality modeling methodology 

(Section 2.4.5), the projected reductions 

(Section 2.4), and the limited NOX

disbenefits (Section 2.4.2.2.2), are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of 

the draft RIA. 

(c) Case Study of Shipping Emissions 

and Ozone Impacts on Forests 

The section below attempts to 

estimate the impacts of the coordinated 

strategy on ecological impacts through a 

case study. 

Assessing the impact of ground-level 

ozone on forests in the eastern United 

States involves understanding the risk/ 

effect of tree species to ozone ambient 

concentrations and accounting for the 

prevalence of those species within the 

forest. As a way to quantify the risk/ 

effect of particular plants to groundlevel ozone, scientists have developed 

ozone-exposure/tree-response functions 

by exposing tree seedlings to different 

ozone levels and measuring reductions 

in growth as ‘‘biomass loss’’.80

With knowledge of the distribution of 

sensitive species and the level of ozone 

at particular locations, it is possible to 

estimate a ‘‘biomass loss’’ for each 

species across their range. EPA 

performed an analysis for 2020 in which 

we examined biomass loss with and 

without ship emissions to determine the 

benefit of reducing these emissions on 

sensitive tree species in the eastern half 

of the U.S.81 The biomass loss 

attributable to shipping appears to range 

from 0–6.5% depending on the 

particular species. The most sensitive 

species in the U.S. to ozone related 

biomass loss is black cherry (Prunus 

serotina); the area of its range with more 

than 10% total biomass loss in 2020 

decreased by 8.5% in the case in which 

emissions from ships were removed. 

Likewise, yellow-poplar (Liriodendron 

tulipifera), eastern white pine (Pinus 

strobus), aspen (Populus spp.), and 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) saw 

areas with more then 2% biomass loss 

reduced by 2.1% to 3.8% in 2020. This 

2% level of biomass loss is important, 

because a consensus workshop on ozone 

effects reported that a 2% annual 

biomass loss causes harm due to the 

potential for compounding effects over 

multiple years as short-term negative 

effects on seedlings affect long-term 

forest health.82, 83

(3) Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition 

(a) Current Levels 

Modeling conducted by the EPA for 

the coordinated strategy shows that in 

2020 ships would add significant 

amounts to sulfur deposition in 

sensitive ecological areas across the 

U.S., ranging from 10% to more than 

25% of total sulfur deposition along the 

entire Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Pacific coastal areas of the U.S. This 

same level of impact would extend 

inland for hundreds of kilometers, 

affecting thousands of sensitive 

ecological areas. This deposition would 

contribute to the serious problem 

acidification causes in terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Nitrogen deposition contributes to 

both acidification and nutrient 

enrichment. In 2020, ships would 

contribute a significant percentage of 

the annual U.S. total nitrogen 

deposition to many terrestrial and 

aquatic areas within the U.S. that are 

potentially sensitive to excess nitrogen. 

The contribution from ships would 

range from about 9% to more than 25% 

along the entire U.S. Atlantic, Pacific 

and Gulf of Mexico coastal regions. See 

the draft RIA for more information and 

detailed maps on sulfur and nitrogen 

deposition. 

(b) Projected Levels 

The emissions reductions that would 

result from the combination of the 

proposed CAA NOX standards along 

with ECA designation through 

amendment to MARPOL Annex VI and 

related proposed fuel standards would 

significantly reduce the annual total 

sulfur and nitrogen deposition occurring 

in sensitive U.S. ecosystems including 

forests, wetlands, lakes, streams, and 

estuaries. For sulfur deposition, 

adopting the coordinated strategy would 

result in reductions ranging from 5% to 

20% along the entire Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts with higher levels of reduction, 

exceeding 25%, occurring in the nearland coastal waters of the U.S. In a few 

land areas on the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts, such as the southern parts of the 

States of Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, 

2020 sulfur deposition reductions 

would be much higher, i.e., over 30%. 

Along the Pacific Coast, sulfur 

deposition reductions would exceed 

25% in the entire Southern California 

area, and the Pacific Northwest. For a 

map of 2020 sulfur reductions and 

additional information on these impacts 

see Section 2.4.3 of the draft RIA. 

Overall, nitrogen deposition 

reductions in 2020 resulting from the 

coordinated strategy described in this 

action are less than sulfur deposition 

reductions. Nitrogen deposition 

reductions would range from 3% to 7% 

along the entire Atlantic, Pacific and 

Gulf Coasts. As with sulfur deposition 

reductions, a few areas such as the 

southern parts of the States of 

Louisiana, Texas, and Florida would 

experience larger reductions of nitrogen 

up to 9%. The Pacific coastal waters 

would see higher nitrogen reductions, 

exceeding 20% in some instances. See 

Section 2.4.3 of the draft RIA for a map 

and additional information on nitrogen 

deposition impacts. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44459 

84The level of visibility impairment in an area is 

based on the light-extinction coefficient and a unit 

less visibility index, called a ‘‘deciview’’, which is 

used in the valuation of visibility. The deciview 

metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes 

over the entire range of conditions, from clear to 

hazy. Under many scenic conditions, the average 

person can generally perceive a change of one 

deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse 

the visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is 

a decrease in deciview value. 

85These emission inventory reductions include 

reductions from ships operating within the 24 

nautical mile regulatory zone off the California 

Coastline, beginning with the effective date of the 

Coordinated Strategy program elements. The 

California regulation contains a provision that 

would sunset the requirements of the rule if the 

Federal program achieves equivalent emission 

reductions. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/ 

fuelogv08/fro13.pdf at 13 CCR 2299.2(j)(1). 

(4) Visibility 

(a) Current Levels 

As of March 12, 2008, over 88 million 

people live in nonattainment areas for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

populations, as well as large numbers of 

individuals who travel to these areas, 

are likely to experience visibility 

impairment. In addition, while visibility 

trends have improved in mandatory 

class I Federal areas, the most recent 

data show that these areas continue to 

suffer from visibility impairment. In 

summary, visibility impairment is 

experienced throughout the U.S., in 

multi-state regions, urban areas, and 

remote mandatory class I Federal areas. 

(b) Projected Levels 

The air quality modeling conducted 

for the coordinated strategy also was 

used to project visibility conditions in 

133 mandatory class I Federal areas 

across the U.S. in 2020 and 2030. The 

results indicate that improvements in 

visibility due to OGV emissions 

reductions would occur in all 133 class 

I Federal areas in the future, although 

all areas would continue to have annual 

average deciview levels above 

background in 2020 and 2030.84 The 

average visibility on the 20 percent 

worst days at these scenic locales is 

projected to improve by 0.21 deciviews, 

or 1.2 percent. 

The greatest improvements in 

visibilities would occur in coastal areas. 

For instance, the Agua Tibia Wilderness 

area (near Los Angeles) would see a 9% 

improvement (2.17 DV) in 2020 as a 

result of the emission reductions from 

the coordinated strategy. National parks 

and national wilderness areas in other 

parts of the country would also see 

improvements. For example, the Cape 

Romain National Wildlife Refuge (South 

Carolina) would have a 5% 

improvement in visibility (1.16 DV) and 

Acadia National Park (Maine) would 

have a 4% improvement (0.76 DV) with 

a 200 nm ECA. Other areas would 

experience important benefits as well 

due to the contribution of OGVs to 

visibility impairment. For example, in 

2002, about 3% of visibility impairment 

in southern Florida’s Everglades 

National Park was due to international 

shipping (0.61 DV), and this will double 

to 6% (1.35 DV) by 2020. Even in inland 

class I Federal areas, international 

shipping activity is contributing to 

visibility degradation. In 2020, about 

2.5% (0.28 DV) of visibility degradation 

in the Grand Canyon National Park 

located in the state of Arizona will be 

from international shipping, while 

almost 6% (0.81 DV) of visibility 

degradation in the State of Washington’s 

North Cascades National Park would be 

from international shipping emissions. 

For the table which contains the full 

visibility results over the 133 analyzed 

areas see Section 2.2.4.2 of the draft 

RIA. 

D. Emissions From Ships With Category 

3 Engines 

(1) Overview 

This section describes the 

contribution of Category 3 vessels to 

national emission inventories of NOX, 

PM2.5, and SO2. A Category 3 vessel has 

a Category 3 propulsion engine. 

Emissions from a Category 3 vessel 

include the emissions from both the 

propulsion and auxiliary engines on 

that vessel. Propulsion and auxiliary 

engine emissions were estimated 

separately to account for differences in 

emission factors, engine size and load, 

and activity. 

We estimate that in 2009, Category 3 

vessels will contribute almost 913,000 

tons (10 percent) to the national mobile 

source NOX inventory, about 71,000 

tons (24 percent) to the mobile source 

diesel PM2.5 inventory, and nearly 

597,000 tons (80 percent) to the mobile 

source SO2 inventory. Expressed as a 

percentage of all anthropogenic 

emissions, Category 3 vessels contribute 

6 percent to the national NOX inventory, 

3 percent to the national PM2.5

inventory, and 11 percent to the total 

SO2 inventory in 2009. In 2030, absent 

the strategy discussed in this proposal, 

these vessels will contribute about 2.1 

million tons (40 percent) to the mobile 

source NOX inventory, 168,000 tons (75 

percent) to the mobile source diesel 

PM2.5 inventory, and about 1.4 million 

tons (95 percent) to the mobile source 

SO2 inventory. Expressed as a 

percentage of all anthropogenic 

emissions, Category 3 vessels will 

contribute 19 percent to the national 

NOX inventory, 5 percent to the national 

PM2.5 inventory, and 15 percent to the 

total SO2 inventory in 2030. Under this 

strategy, by 2030, annual NOX emissions 

from these vessels would be reduced by 

1.2 million tons, PM2.5 emissions by 

143,000 tons, and SO2 emissions by 1.3 

million tons.85

Each sub-section below discusses one 

of the three affected pollutants, 

including expected emission reductions 

that would result from the combination 

of the proposed CAA NOX standards 

along with the ECA designation through 

amendment to MARPOL Annex VI and 

related proposed fuel standards. Table 

II–2 summarizes the impacts of these 

reductions for 2020 and 2030. Table II– 

3 provides the estimated 2030 NOX

emission reductions (and PM 

reductions) for the coordinated strategy 

compared to the Locomotive and Marine 

rule, Clean Air Nonroad Diesel (CAND) 

program, and the Heavy-Duty Highway 

rule. Further details on our inventory 

estimates are available in Chapter 3 of 

the draft RIA. 

As described in Chapter 3 of the draft 

RIA, the ocean-going vessel emission 

inventories presented in this section are 

estimated by combining two sets of 

emissions inventories, one for U.S. port 

areas and one for operation on the open 

ocean. With regard to operation on the 

open ocean, it was necessary to specify 

an outer boundary of the modeling 

domain; otherwise, emissions from 

ships operating as far away as Asia or 

Europe would be included in the U.S. 

emission inventory. For simplicity, we 

set the outer boundary for inventory 

modeling roughly equivalent to the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It 

consists of the area that extends 200 

nautical miles (nm) from the official 

U.S. baseline, which is recognized as 

the low-water line along the coast as 

marked on the official U.S. nautical 

charts in accordance with the articles of 

the Law of the Sea. The U.S. region was 

then clipped to the boundaries of the 

U.S. EEZ. While this area will exclude 

emissions that occur outside the 200 nm 

boundary but that are transported to the 

U.S. landmass, it has the advantage of 

corresponding to an area in which the 

United States has a clear environmental 

interest. This area also corresponds well 

to the CMAQ modeling domain for most 

coasts. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44460 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

86These engines are included within EPA’s 

commercial marine category to differentiate them 

from recreational marine engines. 

87The ECA proposal and associated Technical 

Support Document can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm 

TABLE II–2—ESTIMATED NATIONAL (50 STATE) REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORY 3 COMMERCIAL MARINE

VESSELS a

Pollutant [short tons] 2020 2030 

NOX: 

NOX Emissions without Coordinated Strategy ............................................................................. 1,361,000 2,059,000 

NOX Emissions with Coordinated Strategy .................................................................................. 952,000 878,000 

NOX Reductions Resulting from Coordinated Strategy ............................................................... 409,000 1,181,000 

Direct PM2.5: 

PM2.5 Emissions without Coordinated Strategy ........................................................................... 110,000 168,000 

PM2.5 Emissions with Coordinated Strategy ................................................................................ 16,000 25,000 

PM2.5 Reductions Resulting from Coordinated Strategy .............................................................. 94,000 143,000 

SO2: 

SO2 Emissions without Coordinated Strategy .............................................................................. 928,000 1,410,000 

SO2 Emissions with Coordinated Strategy ................................................................................... 51,000 78,000 

SO2 Reductions Resulting from Coordinated Strategy ................................................................ 877,000 1,332,000

Notes: 

aEmissions are included within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline. 

TABLE II–3—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT MOBILE SOURCE RULES (SHORT TONS) a

Rule NOX PM2.5

Category 3 Marine Proposal .................................................................................................................................... 1,181,000 143,000 

Locomotive and Marine ........................................................................................................................................... 795,000 27,000 

Clean Air Nonroad Diesel ........................................................................................................................................ 738,000 129,000 

Heavy-Duty Highway ............................................................................................................................................... 2,600,000 109,000 

Notes: 

a Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008); Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004); Heavy-Duty Highway Rule (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). 

(2) NOX Emission Reductions 

In 2009, annual emissions from 

Category 3 commercial 86 marine vessels 

will total about 913,000 tons. Earlier 

Tier 1 NOX engine standards became 

effective in 2000, but the reductions due 

to the Tier 1 standards are offset by the 

growth in this sector, resulting in 

increased NOX emissions of 1.4 million 

tons and 2.1 million tons in 2020 and 

2030, respectively. 

As shown in Table II–2, the 

coordinated strategy would reduce 

annual NOX emissions from the current 

national inventory baseline by 409,000 

tons in 2020 and 1,181,000 tons in 2030. 

As shown in Table II–3, the 2030 NOX

reductions for the coordinated strategy 

would exceed those for the other two 

nonroad rules. 

(3) PM2.5 Emissions Reductions 

In 2009, annual emissions from 

Category 3 commercial marine vessels 

will total about 71,000 tons. By 2030, 

these engines, absent the coordinated 

strategy, would contribute about 

168,000 tons. 

As shown in Table II–2, the 

coordinated strategy would reduce 

annual PM2.5 emissions by 94,000 tons 

in 2020 and 143,000 tons in 2030. As 

seen in Table II–3, the 2030 PM2.5

emission reduction would be larger than 

any of the reductions achieved with 

other recent rules. 

(4) SO2 Emissions Reductions 

In 2009, annual emissions from 

Category 3 commercial marine vessels 

will total about 597,000 tons. By 2030, 

these engines, absent the coordinated 

strategy, would contribute about 1.4 

million tons. 

As shown in Table II–2 the 

coordinated strategy would reduce 

annual SO2 emissions by 877,000 tons 

in 2020 and 1.3 million tons in 2030. 

III. Engine Standards 

This section details the emission 

standards, implementation dates, and 

other major requirements being 

proposed under the Clean Air Act. A 

detailed discussion of the technological 

feasibility of the proposed NOX

standards follows the description of the 

proposed program. 

Other elements of our coordinated 

strategy to control emissions from OGV 

are discussed in subsequent sections. 

Provisions related to our Clean Air Act 

fuel controls are described in Section 

IV. Section V summarizes the U.S. and 

Canada’s recent proposal to amend 

MARPOL Annex VI to designate much 

of the U.S. and Canadian coasts as an 

Emission Control Area.87 Finally, 

provisions revising our Clean Air Act 

test procedures and related certification 

requirements, provisions to implement 

MARPOL Annex VI through APPS, and 

various changes we are considering to 

our Categories 1 and 2 (marine diesel 

engines with per cylinder displacement 

less than 30 liters per cylinder) marine 

diesel engine program are described in 

Section VI. 

A. What Category 3 Marine Engines are 

Covered? 

Consistent with our existing marine 

diesel emission control program, the 

proposed engine emission standards 

would apply to any new marine diesel 

engine with per cylinder displacement 

at or above 30 liters installed on a vessel 

flagged or registered in the United 

States. 

With regard to marine diesel engines 

on foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports, 

we are proposing to retain our current 

approach and not apply this Clean Air 

Act program to those engines. This is 

appropriate because engines on foreign 

vessels are subject to the same NOX

limits through MARPOL Annex VI, and 

the United States can enforce 

compliance pursuant to Annex VI and 

the recent amendments to the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 USC 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44461 

88Certain foreign public vessels such as military 

vessels and foreign vessels in innocent passage may 

be exempt. 

1901 et seq.). At the same time, 

however, the effectiveness of this 

approach is contingent on the 

designation of U.S. coasts as an ECA 

pursuant to MARPOL Annex VI, since 

the Annex VI Tier III NOX limits are 

geographic in scope and apply only in 

designated ECAs. We anticipate that 

MARPOL Annex VI will be amended to 

include the U.S. and Canadian 

government proposal. If, however, the 

proposed amendment is not adopted in 

a timely manner by IMO, we intend to 

take supplemental action to control 

harmful emissions from all vessels 

affecting U.S. air quality. Section V 

contains a description of the ECA 

designation process and further 

discussion of the application of the Act 

to engines on foreign vessels if ECA 

designation is delayed or not approved. 

The combination of this Clean Air Act 

program, MARPOL Annex VI, and APPS 

will apply comparable emission 

standards to the vast majority of vessels 

entering U.S. ports or operating in U.S. 

waters.88 Most significantly, these 

vessels will be required to meet the NOX

limits described below. As is described 

later in this Section III and in Section 

VI, there would be some minor 

differences between the proposed Clean 

Air Act program and the requirements 

that apply under MARPOL Annex VI. 

Nevertheless, with respect to U.S. air 

quality, these differences would have a 

negligible effect on emissions from 

foreign vessels. 

Although we are not proposing 

standards for existing engines on vessels 

already in the U.S. fleet, we are seeking 

comment on a programmatic alternative 

that would help reduce emissions from 

those engines. This Voluntary Marine 

Verification Program is described in 

Section IX. 

B. What Standards are we Proposing for 

Freshly Manufactured Engines? 

This subsection details the emission 

standards (and implementation dates) 

we are proposing for freshly 

manufactured (i.e., new) Category 3 

engines on U.S. vessels. As described in 

Section III.C, we believe the proposed 

standards will be challenging to 

manufacturers, yet ultimately feasible 

and cost-effective within the proposed 

lead time. These standards, along with 

other parts of our program, are the 

outcome of our work with stakeholders 

to resolve the challenges associated with 

applying advanced diesel engine 

technology to Category 3 engines to 

achieve significant NOX reductions. 

(1) NOX Standards 

We are proposing new NOX emission 

standards for Category 3 marine diesel 

engines. Our existing Tier 1 NOX

standards for Category 3 engines are 

dependent on the rated speed of the 

engine for speeds between 130 

revolutions per minute (rpm) and 2000 

rpm. Fixed standards apply for lower 

and higher speeds. Thus, the standards 

are expressed as an equation that 

applies for speeds between 130 rpm and 

2000 rpm, along with fixed values that 

are calculated from the equation for 130 

rpm and 2000 rpm that apply for lower 

and higher speeds. This was done to 

account for the fact that brake-specific 

NOX emissions are inherently higher for 

lower speed engines (and lower for 

higher speed engines). Note that this 

same approach is used by the IMO for 

the same technical reasons. We are 

proposing to continue this approach for 

Tier 2 and Tier 3, as shown in Table III– 

1. 

TABLE III–1—PROPOSED NOX EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 3 ENGINES (G/KW-HR) 

Less than 130 

RPM 

130–2000 

RPM a

Over 2000 

RPM 

Tier 1 ................................................................................................................ b 2004 17.0 45.0 · n(¥0.20) 9.8 

Tier 2 ................................................................................................................ 2011 14.4 44.0 · n(¥0.23) 7.7 

Tier 3 ................................................................................................................ 2016 3.4 9.0 · n(¥0.20) 2.0 

Notes: 

aApplicable standards are calculated from n (maximum in-use engine speed in RPM), rounded to one decimal place. 

bTier 1 NOX standards apply for engines originally manufactured after 2004, and proposed to also to certain earlier engines. 

Our analysis, which is described in 

the draft RIA, shows that these 

standards will give the greatest degree of 

emission control achievable considering 

compliance costs, lead time, and other 

relevant factors. The technological bases 

are also discussed briefly below. 

Note that other important provisions 

related to compliance with these 

standards are described in Section VI. 

This includes provisions to ensure 

effective control of NOX emissions over 

a broad range of operating conditions. 

(a) Tier 2 NOX Limits 

We are proposing new Tier 2 NOX

emission standards for Category 3 

marine diesel engines. In-cylinder 

emission control technology for 

Category 3 marine engines has 

progressed substantially in recent years. 

Significant reductions can be achieved 

in the near term with little or no impact 

on overall vessel performance. These 

technologies include traditional engineout controls such as electronicallycontrolled high-pressure common-rail 

fuel systems, turbocharger optimization, 

compression-ratio changes, and 

electronically-controlled exhaust valves. 

We are setting a near-term NOX

emission standard requiring a reduction 

of approximately 20 percent below the 

current Tier 1 standard beginning 2011. 

(b) Tier 3 NOX Limits 

While the Tier 2 standards will 

achieve modest reductions quickly, the 

proposed Tier 3 standards are intended 

to achieve much greater emission 

reductions through the use of advanced 

aftertreatment such as selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR). These standards would 

achieve reductions of about 80 percent 

from the current Tier 1 standards. As 

explained in Section IX.B below 

regarding regulatory alternatives, we 

evaluated the possibility of requiring the 

Tier 3 limits on an earlier schedule than 

2016. However, we found that a 

schedule requiring Tier 3 limits prior to 

2016 had significant feasibility issues, 

and are therefore proposing the 2016 

implementation date for Tier 3 

standards. Under the proposed 

approach, manufacturers of Category 3 

engines will have about the same 

amount of lead time allowed 

manufacturers for smaller marine 

engines and locomotives. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

89Flynn, P., et al, ‘‘Minimum Engine Flame 

Temperature Impacts on Diesel and Spark-Ignition 

Engine NOX Production’’, SAE 2000–01–1177, 

2000. 

90Heywood, John B., ‘‘Internal Combustion 

Engine Fundamentals’’, McGraw-Hill, 1988. 

(2) PM and SOX Standards 

We are not proposing new engine 

standards for PM or SOX emissions. We 

intend to rely instead on the use of 

cleaner fuels as described in Section IV 

and V. SOX emissions and the majority 

of the direct PM emissions from 

Category 3 marine engines operated on 

residual fuels are a direct result of fuel 

quality, most notably the sulfur in the 

fuel, and engine-based PM controls are 

not currently feasible for engines using 

these fuels. Other components of 

residual fuel, such as ash and heavy 

metals, also contribute directly to PM. 

Using cleaner distillate fuel is the 

most effective means to achieve 

significant PM and SOX reductions for 

Category 3 engines. We are proposing 

substantial reductions in the sulfur 

content of fuel purchased in the U.S. for 

use in an ECA. This complements 

Annex VI which requires that fuels used 

in ECAs around the world have sulfur 

levels below 1,000 ppm. This sulfur 

limit is expected to necessitate the use 

of distillate fuel which will result not 

only in reductions in sulfate PM 

emissions, but also reductions in 

organic PM and metallic ash particles in 

the exhaust. 

Even though the sulfur limit is much 

lower than current levels, it is not clear 

if this fuel sulfur level would be low 

enough to allow Category 3 engines to 

be equipped with the catalytic PM 

filters similar to those being used by 

trucks today. If we were to require 

technology that needs lower sulfur fuel, 

such as 15 ppm, ship operators would 

need to have access to this fuel around 

the world. Operating on higher sulfur 

fuel, such as for outside of our waters, 

could otherwise result in damage to the 

PM control equipment. At this time, it 

is not clear if 15 ppm sulfur fuel could 

be made available around the world. In 

any case, the 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel 

requirement alone will eliminate 85 

percent of PM emissions from ships 

operating in ECAs. 

To further our understanding of PM 

emissions from ships, we are proposing 

to require engine manufacturers to 

measure and report PM emissions even 

though we are not proposing a PM 

standard. The information gathered will 

help support our efforts as we continue 

to evaluate the feasibility of achieving 

further PM reductions through enginebased controls. It will also help us to 

better characterize the PM emission 

rates associated with operating Category 

3 engines on distillate fuel. If we 

determine that further PM reductions 

are feasible or that a specific PM limit 

is necessary to ensure anticipated 

reductions in PM emissions from ships, 

we may propose PM standards for 

Category 3 engines in the future. 

(3) HC and CO Standards 

We are proposing HC and CO 

standards of 2.0 g/kW-hr and 5.0 g/kWhr, respectively. Emission control 

technologies for C3 marine engines have 

been concentrated on reducing NOX and 

PM emissions, but these emission 

standards will prevent increases in 

emissions of HC and CO that might 

otherwise occur as a result of use of 

certain technologies for controlling 

NOX, such as those that significantly 

degrade combustion efficiency. 

(4) CO2 Standards 

We are not proposing to adopt CO2

standards for marine diesel engines at 

this time. Marine diesel engines are 

included in other ongoing Agency 

actions, including our Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for 

mobile sources (73 FR 44353, July 30, 

2008) and our Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 

2009). In addition, EPA is participating 

in the U.S. Government delegation to 

IMO, which is currently engaged in 

negotiations for an international 

program to address greenhouse 

emissions from ships. 

C. Are the Standards Feasible? 

We have analyzed a variety of 

technologies available for NOX

reduction in the Category 3 marine 

sector. As described in more detail in 

our draft RIA, we are projecting that 

marine diesel engine manufacturers will 

choose to use in-cylinder, or engine 

design-based emission control 

technologies to achieve the 15 to 20 

percent NOX reductions required to 

meet the proposed Tier 2 standard. To 

achieve the 80 percent NOX reductions 

required to meet the proposed Tier 3 

standard, we believe many 

manufacturers will choose SCR exhaust 

aftertreatment technology. In addition, 

manufacturers may choose a 

combination of other in-cylinder 

technologies, such fuel-water 

emulsification, direct water injection, 

intake air humidification, or exhaust gas 

recirculation (EGR) to reduce NOX

emissions and meet the proposed 

standards. These ‘‘in-cylinder’’ 

approaches could be calibrated and 

applied in one manner to achieve Tier 

3 NOX levels when operating with an 

ECA, and then adjusted, or re-calibrated, 

in another manner to achieve Tier 2 

NOX levels when operating outside an 

ECA. 

The in-cylinder, or engine-out, NOX

emissions of a diesel engine can be 

controlled by utilizing engine design 

and calibration parameters (e.g., fuel 

delivery and valve timing) to limit the 

formation of NOX. NOX formation rate 

has a strong exponential relationship to 

combustion temperature. Therefore, 

high temperatures result in high NOX

formation rates.89 90 Any changes to 

engine design and calibration which can 

reduce the peak temperature realized 

during combustion will also reduce 

NOX emissions. Many of the approaches 

and technologies for reducing incylinder NOX emissions are discussed 

in our draft RIA. 

SCR is a commonly-used technology 

for meeting stricter NOX emissions 

standards in diesel applications 

worldwide. Stationary power plants 

fueled with coal, diesel and natural gas 

have used SCR for three decades as a 

means of controlling NOX emissions, 

and European heavy-duty truck 

manufacturers are currently using this 

technology to meet Euro 5 emissions 

limits. To a lesser extent, SCR has been 

introduced on diesel engines in the U.S. 

market, but the applications have been 

limited to marine ferryboat and 

stationary electrical power generation 

demonstration projects in California and 

several of the Northeast states. SCR 

systems are currently being designed 

and developed for use on ocean-going 

vessels worldwide, and we project that 

SCR will continue to be a viable 

technology for control of Category 3 

NOX emissions. A more detailed 

discussion of SCR technology can be 

found in our draft RIA. 

IV. Fuel Standards 

A. Background 

EPA is proposing emissions standards 

for Category 3 (C3) engines that are 

consistent with those recently adopted 

as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. 

As amended, Annex VI includes revised 

fuel sulfur standards for use in engines 

onboard ships, and it also set more 

stringent fuel sulfur limits for ‘‘any fuel 

oil used onboard ships * * * operating 

within an Emission Control Area’’ 

(Annex VI, Regulation 14). 

Under the Annex, the process by 

which an Emission Control Area (ECA) 

is to be designated is through 

amendment of the Annex. The U.S. and 

Canadian governments have submitted a 

proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI 

to designate an ECA to include much of 

the U.S. and Canadian coastlines. 

Specifically, the proposed ECA would 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44463 

91For the purposes of this proposal, the term 

‘‘ECA’’ as it is used in this Section IV refers to both 

the area of the proposed ECA and internal U.S. 

waters. Though the outer limits of the proposed 

sulfur limitation are the same as for the proposed 

ECA, the sulfur limitation in this proposal is not 

dependent on MEPC approval of the ECA. 

92For the purpose of the discussion in this 

section, ‘‘Category 3 vessel’’ refers to a commercial 

vessel with a Category 3 propulsion engine; 

‘‘Category 2 vessel’’ refers to a commercial or 

recreational vessel with a Category 2 propulsion 

engine; and ‘‘Category 1 vessel’’ refers to a 

commercial or recreational vessel with only 

Category 1 or smaller engines. The proposed fuel 

provisions here apply to all of the engines on a 

given vessel. 

93For the purposes of this proposal (and the 

proposed 40 CFR Part 80 regulations), the term 

‘‘marine’’ as it is used here refers to Category 1 and 

2 marine diesel engines unless otherwise stated. 

94Category 3 marine engines frequently are 

designed to use residual fuels and include special 

fuel handling equipment to use the residual fuel. 

95For the purposes of the diesel sulfur program, 

the term heating oil basically refers to any No. 1 or 

No. 2 distillate other than jet fuel, kerosene, and 

diesel fuel used in highway or NRLM applications. 

For example, heating oil includes fuel which is 

suitable for use in furnaces and similar applications 

and is commonly or commercially known or sold 

as heating oil, fuel oil, or other similar trade names. 

include the entire coastline for the 

contiguous 48 states, Southeastern 

Alaska, and the Main Hawaiian Islands, 

extending to a distance of 200 nautical 

miles from the coastline. We anticipate 

that this amendment will be considered 

at the next Marine Environment 

Protection Committee (MEPC 59) which 

is scheduled for July 2009. We expect 

that the amendment will be adopted in 

March 2010, at MEPC 60. This approval 

date is roughly three months after the 

intended date for promulgation of the 

final rule. 

EPA is in this notice proposing fuel 

sulfur limits under section 211(c) of the 

Clean Air Act that match the limits that 

apply under Annex VI in ECAs. The 

adoption of such standards would: (1) 

Forbid the production and sale of fuel 

oil above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in the 

waters within the proposed ECA (as 

well as internal U.S. waters); 91 and (2) 

allow for the production and sale of up 

to 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use in C3 

marine vessels.92

The majority of vessels with a C3 

propulsion engine operate on highsulfur, heavy fuel oil (HFO) (also known 

as residual, or bunker, fuel). Due to their 

use of heavy fuel, these marine diesel 

engines have very high PM and SO2

emissions. Sulfur in the fuel is emitted 

from engines primarily as SO2; however 

a small fraction is emitted as sulfur 

trioxide (SO3) which immediately forms 

sulfate and is emitted as PM by the 

engine. In addition, much of the SO2

emitted from the engine reacts in the 

atmosphere to form secondary PM. 

Reductions in residual fuel sulfur levels 

would lead to significant sulfate PM and 

SO2 emission reductions which would 

provide dramatic environmental and 

public health benefits. However, in most 

cases, fuels that meet the long-term fuel 

sulfur standards will likely be distillate 

fuels, rather than HFO. In addition to 

reductions in sulfate PM, switching 

from HFO to distillate fuel may reduce 

black carbon emissions, fine particle 

counts, organic carbon, and metallic ash 

particles. 

HFO sold for use by these vessels is 

currently not subject to any EPA sulfur 

limits (as it is not regulated by our 

current sulfur program) and generally 

has very high levels of sulfur. The 

proposed modifications to our existing 

diesel fuel program will prohibit the 

production and sale of this fuel for use 

in an ECA. Instead, fuel sold for use in 

an ECA would not be allowed to exceed 

a sulfur content of 1,000 ppm. In a 

complementary fashion, the amendment 

to MARPOL Annex VI designating the 

U.S. ECA will ensure that fuel used in 

an ECA, including fuel purchased in 

another country but used within the 

U.S. ECA, also meets a 1,000 ppm sulfur 

limit. Under our proposed regulations, 

fuel sold for use by C3 vessels in the 

U.S. ECA will be allowed to have a 

sulfur content as high as this 1,000 ppm 

sulfur limit, while fuel sold for use in 

Category 1 (C1; marine diesel engines 

up to 7 liters per cylinder displacement) 

and Category 2 (C2; marine diesel 

engines from 7 to 30 liters per cylinder) 

vessels would continue to be subject to 

the nonroad, locomotive, and marine 93

(NRLM) diesel fuel sulfur requirements. 

In the event that the U.S. ECA is not 

approved in a timely manner, we will 

revisit the standards being proposed 

here in that context. 

B. Current Diesel Fuel Standards 

The Nonroad Diesel program 

(finalized on June 29, 2004 (69 FR 

38958)) reduces the sulfur content of 

NRLM diesel fuel from uncontrolled 

levels down to a maximum sulfur level 

of 15 ppm. Refiners and importers are 

required to produce or import all NRLM 

diesel fuel at a sulfur level of 15 ppm 

or less by June 1, 2014. The main 

compliance mechanism of the diesel 

sulfur program is the Designate and 

Track (D&T) provisions, which allows 

NRLM diesel fuel to be distinguished 

from similar products (e.g., heating oil) 

and yet provides a means for diesel fuel 

to be fungibly transported through the 

fuel production and distribution system. 

Under D&T, refiners and importers are 

required to designate the type and sulfur 

level of each batch of fuel produced or 

imported. As this fuel is transferred 

through the distribution system, product 

transfer documents (PTDs) must be 

exchanged each time the batch changes 

custody. Along with PTDs, other 

required elements of D&T include 

quarterly and annual reporting, fuel 

pump labeling, and recordkeeping. 

The Nonroad Diesel program also 

contains certain provisions to ease 

refiners’ transition to the lower sulfur 

standards and to enable the efficient 

distribution of all diesel fuels. These 

provisions, as discussed more below in 

Section IV.B.2, include special 

provisions for qualified small refiners, 

transmix processors, and entities in the 

fuel distribution system. 

(1) Scope of the Nonroad Diesel Fuel 

Program 

The sulfur standards finalized by the 

Nonroad Diesel rule apply to all the 

diesel fuel that is produced and sold for 

use in NRLM diesel applications (all 

fuel used in NRLM diesel engines, 

except for fuels heavier than a No. 2 

distillate used in Category 2 and 3 

marine engines 94 and any fuel that is 

exempted for national security or other 

reasons). While the Nonroad Diesel rule 

did not set sulfur standards for other 

distillate fuels (such as jet fuel, heating 

oil, kerosene, and No. 4 fuel oil), it did 

implement provisions to prevent the 

inappropriate use of heating oil and 

other higher sulfur distillate fuels in 

NRLM and locomotive and marine (LM) 

diesel applications. Sale of distillate 

fuels for use in nonroad, locomotive, or 

marine diesel engines will generally be 

prohibited unless the fuel meets the 

diesel fuel sulfur standards of 40 CFR 

Part 80.95 The regulated fuels under our 

diesel fuel sulfur program include those 

fuels listed in the regulations at 40 CFR 

80.2(qqq). 

The current sulfur standards do not 

apply to: (1) No. 1 distillate fuel used to 

power aircraft; (2) Number 4, 5, and 6 

fuels (e.g., residual fuels or residual fuel 

blends, intermediate fuel oil (IFO) 

Heavy Fuel Oil Grades 30 and higher), 

used for stationary source purposes; (3) 

any distillate fuel with a T–90 

distillation point greater than 700 °F, 

when used in Category 2 or 3 marine 

diesel engines (this includes Number 4, 

5, and 6 fuels (e.g., IFO Heavy Fuel Oil 

Grades 30 and higher), including fuels 

meeting the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

specifications DMB, DMC, and RMA–10 

and heavier); and (4) any fuel for which 

a national security or research and 

development exemption has been 

approved or fuel that is exported from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the U.S. The criterion that any distillate 

fuel with a T–90 greater than 700 °F will 

not be subject to the sulfur standards 

when used in Category 2 or 3 marine 

engines was intended to exclude fuels 

heavier than No. 2 distillate, including 

blends containing residual fuel. In 

addition, residual fuel is not subject to 

the sulfur standards. 

While many marine diesel engines 

use No. 2 distillate, ASTM 

specifications for marine fuels identify 

four kinds of marine distillate fuels: 

DMX, DMA, DMB, and DMC. DMX is a 

special light distillate intended mainly 

for use in emergency engines. DMA 

(also called marine gas oil, or ‘‘MGO’’) 

is a general purpose marine distillate 

that contains no trace of residual fuel. 

These fuels can be used in all marine 

diesel engines but are primarily used by 

Category 1 engines. DMX and DMA 

fuels intended for use in any marine 

diesel engine are subject to EPA’s fuel 

sulfur standards. 

DMB, also called marine diesel oil, is 

not typically used with Category 1 

engines, but is used for Category 2 and 

3 engines. DMB is allowed to have a 

trace of residual fuel, which can be high 

in sulfur. This contamination with 

residual fuel usually occurs due to the 

distribution process, when distillate is 

brought on board a vessel via a barge 

that has previously contained residual 

fuel, or using the same supply lines as 

are used for residual fuel. DMB is 

produced when fuels such as DMA are 

brought on board the vessel in this 

manner. EPA’s sulfur standards do 

apply to the distillate that is used to 

produce the DMB, for example the DMA 

distillate, up to the point that it becomes 

DMB. However, DMB itself is not 

subject to the EPA sulfur standards 

when it is used in Category 2 or 3 

engines. 

DMC is a grade of marine fuel that 

may contain some residual fuel and is 

often a residual fuel blend. This fuel is 

similar to No. 4 diesel, and can be used 

in Category 2 and Category 3 marine 

diesel engines. DMC is produced by 

blending a distillate fuel with residual 

fuel, for example at a location 

downstream in the distribution system. 

EPA’s sulfur standards apply to the 

distillate that is used to produce the 

DMC, up to the point that it is blended 

with the residual fuel to produce DMC. 

However, DMC itself is not subject to 

the EPA sulfur standards when it is 

used in Category 2 or 3 marine engines. 

Residual fuel is not covered by the 

sulfur content standards as it is not a 

distillate fuel. Residual fuel is typically 

designated by the prefix RM (e.g., RMA, 

RMB, etc.). These fuels are also 

identified by their nominal viscosity 

(e.g., RMA10, RMG35, etc.). Most 

residual fuels require treatment by an 

onboard purifier-clarifier centrifuge 

system, although RMA and RMB do not 

require this. 

The distillation criterion adopted by 

EPA, T–90 greater than 700 °F, was 

designed to identify those fuels that are 

not subject to the sulfur standards when 

used in Category 2 or 3 marine diesel 

engines. It is intended to exclude DMB, 

DMC, and other heavy distillates or 

blends, when used in Category 2 or 3 

marine diesel engines. We are not 

proposing to amend this provision in 

this action. However, under this 

proposal, all of these fuels, and any 

other diesel fuels or fuel oils, would be 

subject to a 1,000 ppm sulfur limit if 

they are produced or sold for use in an 

ECA. 

(2) Flexibilities 

Compliance flexibilities were 

provided in the nonroad diesel sulfur 

regulations for qualified small refiners 

(69 FR 39047; Section IV.B.1) and for 

transmix processors (69 FR 39045; 

Section IV.A.3.d). Small refiners were 

provided, among other flexibility 

options, additional time for compliance 

with the 15 ppm NRLM standard, until 

June 1, 2014. Transmix processors, who 

distill off-specification interface 

mixtures of petroleum products from 

pipeline systems into gasoline and 

distillate fuel, have a simple refinery 

configuration that does not make it costeffective for them to install and operate 

a hydrotreater to reduce distillate fuel 

sulfur content. As a result, transmix 

processors were provided with the 

flexibility to continue to produce all of 

their NRLM diesel fuel to meet the 500 

ppm sulfur standard until June 1, 2014, 

and all of their LM diesel fuel to meet 

a 500 ppm sulfur limit indefinitely. The 

latter flexibility also allows for an outlet 

for off-spec fuel that may be produced 

in the distribution system. 

The D&T provisions, first established 

to distinguish highway from nonroad 

500 ppm fuel, were thus continued 

beyond 2014 to ensure that 500 ppm 

NRLM could be distinguished from 

similar fuel (e.g., heating oil that has a 

sulfur level of 500 ppm). In 2014 and 

beyond, D&T is essential to ensure that 

heating oil is not being inappropriately 

shifted downstream of the refiner into 

the NRLM and LM diesel fuel markets, 

circumventing the NRLM standards (as 

mentioned above in Section IV.B.1). 

Provisions in the Nonroad Diesel rule to 

ensure that heating oil is not used in 

NRLM applications include the use of a 

fuel marker to distinguish heating oil 

from NRLM and LM diesel fuel, dye 

solvent yellow 124, which is added to 

heating oil at the terminal level. The 

D&T provisions also provided parties in 

the diesel fuel industry with inherent 

flexibility. D&T maximizes the 

efficiency of the distribution system by 

allowing for fungible distribution of 

physically similar products, and 

minimizing the need for product 

segregation. Under D&T, diesel fuel with 

similar sulfur levels can be fungibly 

shipped up to the point of distribution 

from a terminal (where off-highway 

diesel fuels must be dyed red, pursuant 

to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

requirements, to indicate its tax exempt 

status). 

(3) Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Area 

In the Northeast, heating oil is 

distributed in significant quantities. 

Discussions with terminal operators in 

the Northeast (and other representatives 

of heating oil users and distributors) 

during the development of the Nonroad 

Diesel rule revealed concerns that the 

heating oil marker requirement would 

represent a significant burden on 

terminal operators and users of heating 

oil given the large volume of heating oil 

used in the Northeast. These parties 

suggested that if EPA prohibited the sale 

and use of diesel fuel produced by those 

utilizing the flexibilities described 

above, this area could be exempted from 

the marker requirement. 

Thus, the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic 

(NE/MA) area was developed (69 FR 

39063, Section IV.D.1.b.ii; see also 40 

CFR 80.510(g) for the specific states and 

counties that comprise the NE/MA 

area). As there would be no way to 

distinguish heating oil from 500 ppm 

NRLM and 500 ppm LM diesel fuel in 

2014 and beyond without the fuel 

marker, these fuel types are not allowed 

to be produced/imported, distributed 

and/or sold in the NE/MA area during 

this time period (500 ppm NRLM diesel 

fuel may not be produced/imported, 

distributed and/or sold in the NE/MA 

area after 2012). 

Similarly, high sulfur NRLM 

(HSNRLM) produced through the use of 

credits is not allowed in Alaska. 

However, EPA-approved small refiners 

in Alaska may produce HSNRLM diesel 

fuel. To receive this approval, a small 

refiner must provide EPA with a 

compliance plan showing how their 

HSNRLM diesel fuel will be segregated 

from all other distillate fuels through its 

distribution to end-users. 

(4) Nonroad Diesel Program Transition 

Schedule 

The transition to lower sulfur diesel 

fuel for NRLM equipment is depicted in 

Figure VI–1 below. The transition for 

urban (areas served by the Federal Aid 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44465 

96Annex VI, Regulation 14 (located in the 

rulemaking docket, EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121– 

0107). 

Highway System) and rural Alaska are 

shown below in Figure VI–2. 

HIGHWAY AND NONROAD DIESEL FUEL STANDARDS

Who Covered fuel 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Highway diesel fuel 80% 15 ppm/20% 500 ppm 100% 15 ppm (including small refiner fuel) 

Large Refiners/ 

Importers.

NR 500 500 500 15 15 15 15 15 

Large Refiners/ 

Importers.

LM 500 500 500 500 500 15 15 15 

NRLM w/credits (not in NE/MA or AK) HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15 

Small Refiners .... NRLM (not in NE/MA, w/approval in AK) HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15 

Transmix Processor & In-use.NR (not in NE/MA or AK) HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 15 

Transmix Processor & In-use.LM (not in NE/MA or AK) HS HS HS 500 500 500 500 500 

2006 dates for HW diesel fuel: June 1 for refiners/importers, September 1 for downstream parties, and October 15 for retailers and wholesale 

purchaser-consumers. 

2010 dates for HW diesel fuel: As of the following dates, all HW diesel fuel must meet the 15 ppm standard—June 1 for refiners/importers, 

October 1 for downstream parties, and December 1 for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers (WPCs). 

2007 dates for NRLM diesel fuel: June 1 for refiners, downstream requirements for NE/MA area* only (August 1 for terminals, October 1 for 

retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in-use). 

2010+ dates for NRLM diesel fuel: June 1 for refiners, August 1 for terminals, October 1 for retailers/WPCs, and December 1 for in-use. 

** Anti-downgrading provisions begin October 15, 2006 ** 

*NOTE—No small refiner or credit NRLM can be used in the NE/MA area. Thus, the large refiner NRLM standard is also the in-use standard in 

the NE/MA area. 

Figure IV–1 Highway, Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel Fuel Sulfur Standards 

Urban AK (areas served by the FAHS) 

HW— 

• pre-2006: HS/uncontrolled. 

• 2006: 6/1/06—refiners to 15; 9/1/06—pipelines & terminals to 15; 10/15/06—retail & WPC to 15. 

NRLM— 

• pre-2007: HS/uncontrolled. 

• 2007: 6/1/07—refiners to 500; 8/1/07—pipelines & terminals to 500; 10/1/07—retail & WPC to 500; 12/1/07—in-use, farm & construction 

tanks to 500 (note—urban AK is on same downstream schedule as NE/MA). 

• 2010: 6/1/10—refiners to 15 NR; 8/1/10—pipelines & terminals to 15 NR; 10/1/10—retail & WPC to 15 NR; 12/1/10—in-use, farm & construction tanks to 15 NR. 

• 2012: 6/1/12—refiners to 15 LM; 8/1/12—pipelines & terminals to 15 LM; 10/1/12—retail & WPC to 15 LM; 12/1/12—in-use, farm & construction tanks to 15 LM. 

**Urban AK is on the same schedule as the main HW & NR diesel programs (except they’re on the same downstream schedule as the NE/MA 

for NRLM in 2007); permanently exempt from dye & marker requirements **. 

Rural AK 

HW— 

• pre-2010: HS/uncontrolled. 

• 2010: 6/1/10—refiners to 15 HW; 8/1/10—pipelines & terminals to 15 HW; 10/1/10—retail & WPC to 15 HW; 12/1/10—in-use, farm & 

construction tanks to 15 HW. 

NRLM— 

• pre-2010: HS/uncontrolled. 

• 2010: 6/1/10—refiners to 15 NRLM; 8/1/10—pipelines & terminals to 15 NRLM; 10/1/10—retail & WPC to 15 NRLM; 12/1/10—in-use, 

farm & construction tanks to 15 NRLM. 

** Downstream transition dates are same for HW & NRLM in rural AK; permanent exemption from dye & marker requirements **. 

General Note—credit & transmix fuel cannot be used in any area of AK; small refiner fuel can be used with approval (and only if properly labeled and segregated). 

Figure IV–2 Highway, Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel Fuel Sulfur Standards for Alaska 

C. Applicability 

Assuming adoption of an amendment 

to MARPOL Annex VI establishing a 

U.S. ECA, the fuel used in that ECA 

cannot exceed 1,000 ppm sulfur 

beginning January 1, 2015.96 As 

mentioned above, we are proposing to 

incorporate a similar 1,000 ppm sulfur 

limit into our CAA regulations at 40 

CFR Part 80 through both a prohibition 

on the production and sale of fuel oil 

above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in any 

marine vessels (C1, C2, and C3) in the 

area of the U.S. ECA, and an allowance 

for the production and use of 1,000 ppm 

sulfur fuel to be used in any engine on 

C3 marine vessels. We are proposing 

that fuel produced and sold for use in 

any engine on C1 and C2 marine vessels 

would continue to be subject to the 

existing diesel sulfur requirements 

which are more stringent than those 

being proposed in this action for C3 

marine vessels; however, we request 

comment on whether engines on C2 

marine vessels should also be allowed 

to use 1,000 ppm ECA fuel similar to 

those on C3 marine vessels. 

Discussions with stakeholders in the 

diesel fuel production and distribution 

industry have indicated that they 

anticipate that most (if not all) fuel oil 

that could meet a 1,000 ppm sulfur 

standard would be considered a 

distillate or diesel fuel, because at a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1,000 ppm sulfur level it is nearly 

impossible for fuel to have a T–90 

distillation point at or above 700 °F (i.e., 

be considered residual fuel). As 

discussed in Section IV.B.1, fuel with a 

T–90 less than 700 °F would be required 

to meet the standards of our existing 

diesel sulfur program which, in 2014 

and beyond, is 15 ppm. We believe that 

because of the limits on the sulfur 

content of fuel used in ECAs, the 

existing diesel fuel sulfur program 

should be revised to allow for the 

production, distribution, purchase, and 

use of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel oil for use 

in engines on C3 marine vessels. 

Therefore, we are proposing a new 1,000 

ppm sulfur category for fuel oil 

produced and purchased for use in any 

engine on a C3 marine vessels (called 

‘‘ECA marine fuel’’). This proposed fuel 

sulfur requirement would largely 

supplement the existing diesel fuel 

sulfur requirements and would 

harmonize EPA’s diesel sulfur program 

with the requirements of Annex VI. 

Under this proposed action, owners of 

Category 3 marine vessels would be able 

to purchase and use 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel, which will allow those vessels to 

comply with the sulfur limits in the U.S. 

ECA (and any other ECA worldwide) 

and in U.S. internal waters. 

D. Fuel Sulfur Standards 

As discussed above in Section IV.C, in 

addition to the prohibition on the sale 

of fuel greater than 1,000 ppm sulfur for 

use in any marine vessel operating 

within the U.S. ECA, we are also 

proposing the allowance of the 

production, distribution, and sale of 

1,000 ppm sulfur ECA marine fuel, 

which we discuss more in this section. 

Prior to this action and, pending the 

establishment of the North American 

ECA, the kind of fuel produced and sold 

for use by C3 marine vessels had 

uncontrolled sulfur levels as it was not 

subject to the NRLM sulfur limits. This 

was reflected in the regulations by 

exempting these kinds of fuel from the 

definition of NRLM diesel fuel and the 

NRLM sulfur limits (40 CFR 80.2(nnn)). 

The combined effect of Annex VI and 

these regulations is to require that any 

fuel sold for use in any engine on a C3 

marine vessel operating in an ECA be 

1,000 ppm sulfur or lower. Fuel oil used 

or sold for use in C3 marine vessels in 

an ECA will therefore go from 

uncontrolled, high sulfur levels to no 

higher than 1,000 ppm sulfur. Under 

Annex VI, fuel with sulfur levels greater 

than 1,000 ppm cannot be used in a 

marine vessel operating in an ECA, no 

matter where the fuel is purchased. 

Consistent with this, the proposed 

section 211(c) controls would prohibit 

the production and sale of any fuel for 

use in the U.S. ECA that is above 1,000 

ppm sulfur. 

The requirements for 1,000 ppm 

sulfur fuel oil apply to the North Sea, 

the Baltic Sea, and any other ECAs 

established around the world, so this 

fuel will be produced by refiners in 

other countries. Under EPA’s current 

NRLM program, this 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel would be subject to the 15 ppm 

NRLM sulfur limit in 2014 and later. If 

EPA were to require that fuel produced, 

distributed, and sold for use for C3 

vessels in the U.S. ECA meet the 15 

ppm sulfur standard after 2014, we 

believe that C3 vessel owners would 

simply purchase 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel 

elsewhere to be used here in the U.S. 

ECA. This could be an extremely 

inefficient process for ship owners. It 

would also mean a loss of sales for U.S. 

refiners of fuel that these C3 vessel 

owners purchase. These impacts would 

add to the costs and burdens of the 

program with no corresponding 

environmental benefit. Therefore, we 

believe that it is reasonable to allow 

U.S. refiners and importers to produce 

1,000 ppm sulfur fuel for use by C3 

vessels. Thus, we are proposing and 

requesting comment on a new fuel 

sulfur standard of 1,000 ppm for fuel 

produced, distributed, and sold for use 

in C3 marine vessels. While we would 

expect use of this fuel to be 

concentrated in the area of the U.S. ECA 

(and any other ECA) and U.S. internal 

waters, we are allowing its use by C3 

marine vessels in all locations, to 

encourage its general use. We are 

proposing that after 2014, no fuel above 

15 ppm could be used in C1 or C2 

vessels; however, we request comment 

on whether or not C2 vessels should be 

treated similarly to C3 vessels. 

We note that the combination of the 

Annex VI ECA provisions and the 

modifications proposed in this action 

for the diesel sulfur program will 

achieve very significant benefits 

compared to the existing program. The 

production and use of 1,000 ppm ECA 

marine fuel, as well as 15 ppm NRLM 

diesel fuel, will replace much higher 

sulfur fuel usage, and there is no 

additional benefit to be gained by 

requiring the sale of 15 ppm sulfur 

diesel fuel for use by C3 vessels as a 

practical matter because we believe C3 

vessels will simply purchase 1,000 ppm 

sulfur fuel elsewhere. In order to 

incorporate these modifications into our 

existing program under the Clean Air 

Act, we need to create a new fuel 

designation for allowable fuel under our 

program. 

(1) Proposed Amendments to the 

Existing Diesel Fuel Sulfur Program 

We are proposing to prohibit the 

production, distribution, and sale or 

offer for sale of any fuel for use in any 

marine diesel vessels (C1, C2, and C3) 

operating in the U.S. ECA that is greater 

than 1,000 ppm sulfur. We are also 

proposing and requesting comment on 

allowing a sulfur limitation of 1,000 

ppm for fuel produced, distributed, and 

sold or offered for sale for use in C3 

marine vessels. To simplify the existing 

diesel fuel sulfur program, we are also 

proposing to eliminate the 500 ppm LM 

diesel fuel standard once the 1,000 ppm 

standard becomes effective. Under the 

existing diesel sulfur program, 500 ppm 

LM diesel fuel can be produced by 

transmix processors indefinitely, and 

can only be used by locomotives and 

marine vessels that do not require 15 

ppm. The original intent of allowing for 

this fuel was to serve as an outlet for 

interface and downgraded diesel fuel 

post-2014 that would otherwise not 

meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard. 

However, we believe that the 1,000 ppm 

sulfur ECA marine fuel could now serve 

as this outlet. We believe that transmix 

generated near the coasts would have 

ready access to marine applications, and 

transmix generated in the mid-continent 

could be shipped via rail to markets on 

the coasts, and we request comment on 

this. 

Elimination of the 500 ppm LM diesel 

fuel standard would simplify the diesel 

sulfur program such that sulfur could 

serve as the distinguishing factor for 

fuels available for use after 2014 (the 

designated products under the diesel 

fuel program would thus be: 15 ppm 

motor vehicle, nonroad, locomotive, and 

marine (MVNRLM) diesel fuel, heating 

oil, and 1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel). 

With this proposed approach, beginning 

in 2014, only 15 ppm NRLM diesel fuel 

could be used in locomotive and C1/C2 

marine diesel applications (and 1,000 

ppm ECA marine fuel could be used in 

any engine on C3 marine vessels). 

Further, this would help to streamline 

the D&T program as there would no 

longer be a need for a fuel marker to 

distinguish 500 ppm LM diesel fuel 

from heating oil. Below, we discuss the 

aspects of D&T that we are proposing to 

change, which we believe will greatly 

simplify the diesel sulfur program. 

(a) Compliance and Implementation 

(i) Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Area and the 

Fuel Marker 

With the proposed elimination of the 

500 ppm LM designation in 2014, 

parties in the fuel production and 

distribution industry would still be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44467 

required to register and designate their 

products and adhere to PTD, fuel pump 

labeling, and recordkeeping 

requirements. But we believe that the 

tracking portion of D&T can be 

simplified. Currently, annual reporting 

is required under § 80.601 for D&T 

through June 30, 2015 (the final annual 

report is due August 31, 2015). This 

final reporting period is to ensure that 

heating oil is not being inappropriately 

shifted into the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel 

pool. However, with the proposed 

elimination of this fuel designation, we 

request comment on ending D&T annual 

reporting in 2014, rather than 2015. 

Under such a scenario, the final annual 

reporting period would instead be July 

1, 2013 through May 31, 2014, with the 

report due to EPA on August 31, 2014. 

We believe that the proposed 

elimination of the 500 ppm LM diesel 

fuel designation would also, beginning 

June 1, 2014, negate the need for the 

heating oil marker and the NE/MA area. 

After 2014, the heating oil marker 

requirement in the existing diesel sulfur 

program is for the sole purpose of 

distinguishing heating oil from 500 ppm 

LM diesel fuel, to prevent heating oil 

from swelling the 500 ppm LM diesel 

fuel pool. Also, as there is no marker 

requirement for heating oil in the NE/ 

MA area, the diesel sulfur program 

currently does not allow for 500 ppm 

LM diesel fuel to be produced, 

distributed, or purchased for use in the 

NE/MA area after 2012. However, if 500 

ppm LM diesel fuel did not exist, there 

would no longer be a need for the 

heating oil marker; fuel designations 

and sulfur level could serve as the 

distinguishing factor between the 

available fuels (15 ppm MVNRLM diesel 

fuel, 1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel, and 

heating oil). Further, there would not be 

a need for the NE/MA area if there were 

no heating oil marker. 

(ii) PTDs and Labeling 

We are proposing new PTD language 

for the 1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel 

designation at draft regulation § 80.590. 

As stated in draft regulation 

§ 80.590(a)(7)(vii), we are proposing that 

the following statement be added to 

PTDs accompanying 1,000 ppm sulfur 

ECA marine fuel: ‘‘1,000 ppm sulfur 

(maximum) ECA Marine Fuel. For use 

in Category 3 marine vessels only. Not 

for use in engines not installed on C3 

marine vessels.’’ 

Appendix V of Annex VI also 

includes language that is required on 

bunker delivery notes. Compliance 

requirements of this action, such as 

PTDs, are not intended to supplant or 

replace requirements of Annex VI (and 

we encourage regulated entities to 

consult Annex VI to ensure that they are 

fully aware of all requirements that 

must be met in addition to EPA’s 

requirements). However, if a party’s 

bunker delivery note also contains the 

information required under our 

regulations for PTDs, we would 

consider the bunker delivery note to 

also suffice as a PTD. 

We are also proposing new pump 

labeling language for the 1,000 ppm 

sulfur ECA marine fuel designation at 

regulation § 80.574. Diesel fuel pump 

labels required under the existing diesel 

sulfur regulations must be prominently 

displayed in the immediate area of each 

pump stand from which diesel fuel is 

offered for sale or dispensing. However, 

we understand that there may be cases 

where it is not feasible to affix a label 

to a fuel pump stand due to space 

constraints (such as diesel fuel pumps at 

marinas) or where there is no pump 

stand, thus the current regulations allow 

for alternative pump labels with EPA 

approval. Previously approved 

alternative fuel pump labels have 

included the use of permanent placards 

in the immediate vicinity of the fuel 

pump; we request comment on other 

possible alternative labeling schemes for 

situations where pump labeling may not 

be feasible. As stated in draft regulation 

§ 80.574, we are proposing to replace 

the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel pump label 

language with the following fuel pump 

label language for 1,000 ppm sulfur ECA 

marine fuel: ‘‘1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA 

MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur 

Maximum). For use in Category 3 

marine vessels only. WARNING— 

Federal law prohibits use in any engine 

that is not installed on a C3 marine 

vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur 

content greater than 1,000 ppm in the 

U.S. Emission Control Area and all U.S. 

internal waters is illegal.’’ We also 

request comment on whether or not fuel 

pumps are (or can be) used to fuel C3 

marine vessels; and if they are not used, 

if PTDs or some other documentation is 

a more appropriate mechanism to 

convey the fuel sulfur level to a C3 

marine vessel operator. 

Under this program, we are also 

proposing to eliminate MVNRLM diesel 

fuel labeling requirements from EPA’s 

regulations. In 2014 and beyond, EPA 

will not require ‘‘visible evidence’’ of 

red dye in off-road fuels; however this 

requirement still exists in IRS’s taxation 

regulations to denote that off-road fuels 

are untaxed. EPA’s required label for 15 

ppm NRLM diesel fuel (instead of one 

15 ppm MVNRLM diesel fuel label) is 

mainly to denote that 15 ppm NRLM 

will be dyed red, while 15 ppm MV 

diesel fuel will not. Further, after 

October 1, 2014, all MVNRLM diesel 

fuel available for purchase and/or 

distribution will be 15 ppm. We believe 

that it is not appropriate for EPA to 

retain a labeling requirement for 

MVNRLM diesel fuel given the fact that 

the red dye provision is no longer EPA’s 

requirement. Please note, however, that 

if MVNRLM labeling requirements were 

removed from EPA’s regulations, 

marketers and wholesale purchaserconsumers would still be free to 

continue to label their pump stands to 

help with consumer awareness. 

Labeling will continue to be required for 

heating oil and, as proposed above, for 

ECA marine fuel. 

Additionally, if labeling requirements 

for MVNRLM diesel fuel were to be 

removed from EPA’s regulations, EPA 

would consult with IRS regarding 

handling labels in IRS’s regulations at 

Title 26 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

(b) Timing of the Standard 

Currently, all refiners and importers 

are required to produce all of their 

NRLM diesel fuel to meet the 15 ppm 

standard beginning June 1, 2014. To 

allow transition time for the distribution 

system, terminals are allowed until 

August 1, 2014 to begin dispensing 15 

ppm NRLM diesel fuel, retailers and 

wholesale purchaser-consumers are 

allowed until October 1, 2014, and endusers are allowed until December 1, 

2014. To be consistent with the existing 

diesel program, we are proposing to 

allow refiners to begin producing 1,000 

ppm sulfur ECA marine fuel beginning 

June 1, 2014, and downstream parties 

would follow the current NRLM 

transition schedule (August, October, 

and December). We believe that 

following the same transition schedule 

as the existing diesel sulfur program 

would best facilitate the availability of 

1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel for 

purchase and use by the Annex VI 

January 1, 2015 date. We request 

comment on the concept of a transition 

period of June 1–December 1, 2014 for 

the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard. 

(2) Alternative Options 

We have identified two potential 

alternatives to the proposed changes to 

the existing diesel fuel sulfur program, 

above. We request comment on any 

related aspects of these alternative 

options, as well as any additional 

alternative options. 

(a) Creation of Expanded NE/MA Area 

While the proposal of a 1,000 ppm 

sulfur standard is to incorporate the 

benefits of this more stringent standard 

for fuel used in engines on C3 marine 

vessels into our current diesel program 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

97Proposal to Designate an Emission Control 

Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and 

Particulate Matter, Submitted by the United States 

and Canada. IMO Document MEPC59/6/5, 27 

March, 2009. A copy of this document can be found 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ 

ci/mepc-59-eca-proposal.pdf 

and harmonize the current program 

with Annex VI, our intent is to do so 

with the least amount of impact on the 

existing diesel sulfur program, so we 

believe that this rulemaking also 

presents us with an opportunity to 

simplify the designate and track 

requirements. 

We request comment on an alternative 

to the proposed general program: to 

expand the NE/MA area to cover all 

coastlines that border the proposed U.S. 

ECA. This alternative would keep the 

requirements of the diesel sulfur 

program largely the same as the existing 

program. Further, this option would 

allow for 500 ppm LM diesel fuel to 

continue to be utilized by the 

locomotive industry (and the marine 

industry) in the mid-continent (outside 

the expanded NE/MA area) and to serve 

as an outlet for off-spec and transmix 

diesel fuel. As discussed above in 

Section IV.B.3, under our current diesel 

fuel sulfur program, 500 ppm LM diesel 

fuel cannot be used in the NE/MA area 

(or Alaska) after 2012. Under the 

‘‘expanded NE/MA’’ area option, 

designate and track would be simplified 

in the expanded NE/MA area as the only 

distillate fuels available would be 15 

ppm MVNRLM diesel fuel, heating oil, 

and 1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel. The 

reduction in types of fuel available for 

use in this area would also allow for 

sulfur level to serve as the 

distinguishing factor, and no additional 

markers or dyes would be necessary to 

differentiate fuels in this area. 

The creation of an expanded NE/MA 

area, however, would mean that an 

additional mechanism to distinguish 

500 ppm LM diesel fuel from 1,000 ppm 

ECA marine fuel would still be needed 

in non-NE/MA areas. 

We request comment on the creation 

of an expanded NE/MA area. 

(b) Retention of 500 ppm LM Diesel 

Fuel Standard 

Another alternative to the option of 

replacing the 500 ppm LM diesel fuel 

standard with the 1,000 ppm sulfur 

standard would be to retain the 500 

ppm LM diesel fuel standard such that 

both 500 ppm LM diesel fuel and 1,000 

ppm ECA marine fuel would be 

available. Under such an option, sulfur 

would not be able to serve as the 

distinguishing factor to maintain 

segregation of 1,000 ppm fuel from other 

EPA distillate categories. The fuel 

marker would still be needed to 

distinguish 500 ppm LM from heating 

oil. 

This option would allow for 500 ppm 

LM diesel fuel to still be utilized by the 

locomotive and marine industries (for 

those engines not requiring 15 ppm 

sulfur diesel fuel) and also serve as an 

outlet for off-spec and transmix diesel 

fuel. However, this option would not 

serve to streamline D&T, and 500 ppm 

LM diesel fuel would not necessarily be 

needed along the coastlines (as 1,000 

ppm sulfur fuel would be available for 

use by C3 marine vessels). We request 

comment on the option of retaining the 

500 ppm LM diesel fuel standard 

nationwide along with the proposed 

1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel sulfur 

standard. 

We request comment on the proposed 

program and alternative options, the 

proposed prohibition on the sale of fuel 

above 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in all 

marine vessels operating in the U.S. 

ECA and U.S. internal waters, and any 

related compliance aspects. 

E. Technical Amendments to the 

Current Diesel Fuel Sulfur Program 

Regulations 

Following publication of the technical 

amendments to the Highway and 

Nonroad Diesel Regulations (71 FR 

25706, May 1, 2006), we discovered 

additional errors and clarifications 

within the diesel regulations at 40 CFR 

part 80, Subpart I that we are addressing 

in this action. These items are merely 

typographical/printing errors and 

grammar corrections. A list of the 

changes that we propose making to 

Subpart I is below in Table IV–1. We 

welcome comments on any of these 

proposed amendments to the 

regulations. 

TABLE IV–1—PROPOSED TECHNICAL

AMENDMENTS TO THE DIESEL FUEL

SULFUR REGULATIONS

Section Description of change 

80.525(a)–(d) ......... Removal of the term 

‘‘motor vehicle’’ from 

this section. 

80.551(f) ................ Correction of printing 

error. 

80.561 .................... Correction of typographical error in title. 

80.593 .................... Correction of typographical error in introductory text. 

80.599(e)(4) ........... Correction of printing 

error in definition of 

terms ‘‘#1MV15I’’ and 

‘‘NPMV15I’’. 

80.600(a)(12) ......... Amended to correct 

date (‘‘May 31, 2014’’ 

instead of ‘‘June 1, 

2014’’). 

80.600(i) ................. Amended to remove 

duplicate sentence. 

80.601(b)(3)(x) ....... Amending to correct 

dates (‘‘August 31’’ 

instead of ‘‘August 

1’’). 

TABLE IV–1—PROPOSED TECHNICAL

AMENDMENTS TO THE DIESEL FUEL

SULFUR REGULATIONS—Continued 

Section Description of change 

80.612(b) ............... Amended to fix typographical error in 

paragraph. 

V. Emission Control Areas for U.S. 

Coasts 

The proposed Clean Air Act standards 

described above are part of a 

coordinated strategy for ensuring that all 

ships that affect U.S. air quality will be 

required to meet stringent NOX and fuel 

sulfur requirements. Another 

component of this strategy consists of 

pursuing ECA designation for U.S. and 

Canadian coasts in accordance with 

Annex VI of MARPOL. ECA designation 

will ensure that all ships, foreignflagged and domestic, are required to 

meet stringent NOX and fuel sulfur 

requirements while operating within 

200 nautical miles of most U.S. coasts. 

This section describes what an ECA is, 

the process for obtaining ECA 

designation at the International 

Maritime Organization, and summarizes 

the U.S. and Canadian proposal for an 

amendment to MARPOL Annex VI 

designating most U.S. and Canadian 

coasts as an ECA (referred to as the 

‘‘U.S./Canada ECA’’ or the ‘‘North 

American ECA’’), submitted to IMO on 

March 27, 2009.97 We also discuss how 

emissions from foreign OGV may be 

covered should approval of the U.S. 

ECA be delayed. 

A. What is an ECA? 

(1) What Emissions Standards Apply in 

an ECA? 

MARPOL Annex VI contains 

international standards to control air 

emissions from ships. The NOX and 

SOX/PM programs each contain two sets 

of standards. The global standards for 

the sulfur content of fuel and NOX

emissions from engines apply to ships at 

all times. In recognition that some areas 

may require further control, Annex VI 

also contains more stringent NOX and 

SOX/PM geographic-based standards 

that apply to ships operating in 

designated Emission Control Areas. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44469 

98Note that MARPOL Annex VI expresses these 

standards in units of % (m/m) sulfur. 10,000 ppm 

S equals 1 percent S. 

The current global fuel sulfur (S) limit 

is 45,000 ppm98 S and will tighten to 

35,000 ppm S in 2012. Depending on a 

2018 fuel availability review, the 

MARPOL Annex VI global fuel sulfur 

limit will be further reduced to 5,000 

ppm S as early as 2020. In contrast, 

ships operating in designated ECAs are 

subject to a fuel sulfur limit of 15,000 

ppm S. The ECA limit is reduced to 

10,000 ppm S in March 2010 and 1,000 

ppm S in 2015. In addition, Tier 3 NOX

standards will apply to new engines 

operating in ECAs beginning in 2016. 

These Tier 3 NOX standards represent 

an 80% reduction in NOX beyond 

current Tier 1 standards and are 

anticipated to require the use of 

aftertreatment technology such as SCR. 

We are proposing to adopt similar Tier 

3 standards as part of our Clean Air Act 

program (see Section III). 

There are currently two ECAs in effect 

today, exclusively controlling SOX; thus 

they are called Sulfur Emission Control 

Areas, or SECAs. The first SECA was 

designated to control the emissions of 

SOX in the Baltic Sea area and entered 

into force in May 2005. The second 

SECA was designated to control the 

emissions of SOX in the North Sea area 

and entered into force in November 

2006. 

(2) What is the Process for Obtaining 

ECA Designation? 

A proposal to amend Annex VI to 

designate an ECA can be submitted by 

a party to Annex VI. A party is a country 

that ratified Annex VI. The proposal for 

amendment must be approved by the 

Parties to MARPOL Annex VI; this 

would take place at a meeting of the 

Marine Environment Protection 

Committee (MEPC). The U.S. deposited 

its Instrument of Ratification with the 

IMO on October 8, 2008. Annex VI 

entered into force for the U.S. on 

January 8, 2009, making the U.S. eligible 

to apply for an ECA. 

The criteria and procedures for ECA 

designation are set out in Appendix III 

to MARPOL Annex VI. A proposal to 

designate an ECA must demonstrate a 

need to prevent, reduce, and control 

emissions of SOX, PM, and/or NOX from 

ships operating in that area. The specific 

criteria are summarized below: 

• A delineation of the proposed area 

of application; 

• A description of the areas at risk on 

land and at sea, from the impacts of ship 

emissions; 

• An assessment of the contribution 

of ships to ambient concentrations of air 

pollution or to 

• Adverse environmental impacts; 

• Relevant information pertaining to 

the meteorological conditions in the 

proposed area of 

• Application to the human 

populations and environmental areas at 

risk; 

• Description of ship traffic in the 

proposed ECA; 

• Description of the control measures 

taken by the proposing Party or Parties; 

• Relative costs of reducing emissions 

from ships compared with land-based 

controls; and 

• An assessment of the economic 

impacts on shipping engaged in 

international trade. 

An amendment to designate an ECA 

must be adopted by the Parties to Annex 

VI, as an amendment to Annex VI. 

Assuming the USG proposal to amend 

Annex VI is considered at MEPC 59, the 

earliest possible adoption date is the 

following MEPC meeting, MEPC 60, 

which is anticipated to take place in 

March 2010. Given the MARPOL 

amendment acceptance process and the 

lead time specified in the regulations, 

an ECA adopted on this timeline could 

be expected to enter into force as early 

as August 2012. 

B. U.S. Emission Control Area 

Designation 

EPA worked with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, State Department, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and other agencies to 

develop the analysis supporting ECA 

designation for U.S. coasts contained in 

the U.S. and Canadian submittal to IMO. 

In addition, we collaborated with 

Environment Canada. As a result, the 

proposal for ECA designation that was 

submitted to IMO was for a combined 

U.S./Canada ECA submission. This 

approach has several advantages. First, 

the emission reductions within a 

Canadian ECA will lead to air quality 

improvements in the U.S. Second, a 

joint ECA helps minimize any 

competitive issues between U.S. and 

Canadian ports, such as in the Puget 

Sound area, that could arise from ECA 

standards. Third, IMO encourages a 

joint submittal where there is a common 

interest in emission reductions on 

neighboring waters. 

(1) What Areas Would Be Covered in a 

U.S./Canada ECA? 

The area included in the U.S. and 

Canadian submittal to IMO for ECA 

designation generally extends 200 

nautical miles from the coastal baseline, 

except where this distance goes beyond 

the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of 

the U.S. and Canada, in which case the 

ECA would be limited by the boundary 

of the applicable EEZ. This area would 

include the Pacific Coast, the Atlantic/ 

Gulf Coast and the Southeastern 

Hawaiian Islands. On the Pacific Coast, 

the ECA would be bounded in the north 

such that it includes the approaches 

into Anchorage, Alaska, but not the 

Aleutian Islands or points north. It 

would continue contiguously to the 

south including the Pacific coasts of 

Canada and the U.S., with its 

southernmost boundary at the point 

where California meets the border with 

Mexico. In the Atlantic/Gulf Coast, the 

ECA would be bounded in the west by 

the border of Texas with Mexico and 

continue contiguously to the east 

around the peninsula of Florida and 

north up the Atlantic coasts of the U.S. 

and Canada and would be bounded in 

the north by the 60th North parallel. 

The Southeastern Hawaiian Islands that 

were included in the ECA submittal are 

Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Molokai, Niihau, 

Kauai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44470 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Not included in the ECA submittal 

were the Pacific U.S. territories, smaller 

Hawaiian Islands, the U.S. territories of 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Western Alaska including the Aleutian 

Islands, and the U.S. and Canadian 

Arctic. The U.S. and Canada did not 

make a determination or imply that 

these areas suffer no adverse impact 

from shipping. Further information 

must be gathered to properly assess 

these areas. If further information 

supports the need for expansion of the 

ECA to other U.S. or Canada areas, we 

would submit a future, supplemental 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44471 

proposal for ECA designation of these 

areas. 

(2) What Analyses Were Performed in 

Support of a U.S./Canada ECA? 

We performed a comprehensive 

analysis to estimate the degree of human 

health risk and environmental 

degradation that is posed by air 

emissions from ships operating in their 

ports and along our coasts. To evaluate 

the risk to human populations, state-ofthe-art assessment tools were used to 

apply widely accepted methods with 

advanced computer modeling 

techniques. The analyses incorporated 

detailed ship traffic data, the most 

recent emissions estimates, detailed 

observed meteorological data, current 

scientific understanding of exhaust 

plume behavior (both physical 

dispersion and photochemical reaction) 

and the latest epidemiologic databases 

of health effects attributable to pollutant 

exposure levels to estimate the current 

impacts of shipping on human health 

and the environment. In addition, 

sulfate and nitrate deposition modeling 

was performed to assess the impacts of 

nitrogen nutrient loading and 

acidification on U.S. ecosystems. 

Two contrasting future scenarios were 

evaluated: one in which ships continue 

to operate with current emissions 

performance while operating in the 

specified area, and one in which ships 

comply with ECA standards. The 

analysis demonstrated that ECA 

designation for U.S. coasts could save 

thousands of lives each year, relieve 

millions of acute respiratory symptoms, 

and benefit many of the most sensitive 

ecosystems. This analysis is consistent 

with, and incorporated in, the benefits 

estimates presented in Section VIII. 

C. Technological Approaches To 

Comply With ECA Standards 

When operating within the ECA, all 

ships would have to comply with the 

0.1% fuel sulfur limit and vessels built 

after December 31, 2015 would have to 

comply with the Tier 3 NOX limits 

described above. This section describes 

how ships would comply with these 

requirements. 

(1) How Will Ships Comply With the 

ECA NOX Standards? 

Ships constructed beginning in 2016 

will have to comply with the MARPOL 

Annex VI Tier III NOX limits. These are 

equivalent to the Tier 3 NOX limits we 

are proposing in this action under our 

Clean Air Act authority. These 

standards are geographic in nature, in 

that they apply to any vessel built 

beginning in 2016 while it is operating 

in an ECA. Once a U.S./Canada ECA is 

designated through amendment to 

MARPOL Annex VI, the requirements 

will be enforceable for most vessels 

through the Act to Prevent Pollution 

from Ships (see Section VI.B). 

As explained in Section III, we 

anticipate that SCR would be the most 

likely approach to meet these NOX

limits. When operating in the ECA, SCR 

units would be active, meaning that 

urea would be injected into the exhaust 

to facilitate catalytic reduction of NOX

emissions. When outside of the ECA, 

the unit would likely be inactive, 

meaning that urea would not be injected 

into the exhaust. When the SCR unit is 

inactive, the exhaust flow could either 

continue to pass through the SCR unit 

or be diverted around the catalyst. 

Under the MARPOL NOX Technical 

Code, a means for monitoring the use of 

urea must be provided which must 

include ‘‘sufficient information to allow 

a ready means of demonstrating that the 

consumption of such additional 

substances is consistent with achieving 

compliance with the applicable NOX

limit.’’ In addition, where an NOX

reducing device, such as SCR, is used, 

one of the options for providing 

verification of compliance with the NOX

standard is through direct measurement 

and monitoring of NOX emissions. 

When operating in an ECA, as 

discussed below, it is anticipated that 

vessels will operate on lower sulfur fuel 

than outside the ECA. Therefore, lower 

sulfur fuel will primarily be used when 

the SCR unit is active. However, ship 

operators may use an exhaust gas 

scrubber as an alternative to lower 

sulfur fuel to meet the SOX/PM ECA 

requirement. In this case, the SCR unit 

would likely be optimized for operation 

on higher sulfur fuel, with the SOX

scrubber situated downstream of the 

SCR unit. 

(2) How Will Ships Comply With the 

ECA Fuel Sulfur Standards? 

As discussed above, the MARPOL 

Annex VI fuel sulfur limit for ships 

operating in an ECA is 15,000 ppm 

today and reduces to 10,000 ppm in 

March 2010 and further to 1,000 ppm in 

2015. We anticipate that the 1,000 ppm 

fuel sulfur limit, beginning in 2015, will 

likely result in the use of distillate fuel 

for operation in ECAs. This would 

require the vessel to switch from a 

higher sulfur fuel to 1,000 ppm S fuel 

before entering the ECA. The practical 

implications of fuel switching are 

discussed below. As an alternative to 

operating on lower sulfur fuel, an 

exhaust gas cleaning device may be 

used to remove sulfur from the exhaust. 

These devices, which are colloquially 

known as SOX scrubbers, are also 

discussed below. 

(a) Fuel Switching 

Currently, the majority of ocean-going 

vessels use residual fuel (also called 

HFO or IFO) in their main propulsion 

engines, as this fuel is relatively 

inexpensive and has a good energy 

density. This fuel is relatively dense 

(‘heavy’) and is created as a refining byproduct from typical petroleum 

distillation. Residual fuels typically are 

composed of heavy, residuum 

hydrocarbons and can contain various 

contaminants such as heavy metals, 

water and sulfur compounds. It is these 

sulfur compounds that cause the SOX

emissions when the fuel is combusted. 

If the vessel does not employ the use of 

a sulfur scrubber or other technology, it 

will most likely operate on a marine 

distillate fuel while in an ECA in order 

to meet the sulfur emission 

requirements. 

The sulfur in marine fuel is primarily 

emitted as SO2; however, a small 

fraction (about 2 percent) is converted to 

SO3. SO3 almost immediately forms 

sulfate and is emitted as direct PM by 

the engine. Consequently, emissions of 

SO2 and sulfate PM are very high for 

engines operating on residual fuel. 

Switching from high sulfur residual fuel 

to lower sulfur distillate fuel results in 

large reductions in SO2 and sulfate PM 

emissions. In addition to high sulfur 

levels, residual fuel contains relatively 

high concentrations of low volatility, 

high molecular weight organic 

compounds and metals. Organic 

compounds that contribute to PM can be 

present either as a nucleation aerosol or 

as a material adsorbed on the surfaces 

of agglomerated elemental carbon soot 

particles and metallic ash particles. The 

sulfuric acid aerosol in the exhaust 

provides a nucleus for agglomeration of 

organic compounds. Operation on 

higher volatility distillate fuel reduces 

both nucleation and adsorption of 

organic compounds into particulate 

matter. Therefore, in addition to direct 

sulfate PM reductions, switching from 

residual fuel to distillate fuel reduces 

organic PM and metallic ash particles in 

the exhaust. 

In the majority of vessels which 

operate on residual fuel, marine 

distillate fuel is still used for operation 

during routine maintenance, prior to 

and immediately after engine shutdown, or in emergencies. Standard 

procedures today have been established 

to ensure that this operational fuel 

switchover is performed safely and 

efficiently. Mainly, in order for the 

vessel to completely switch between 

residual and distillate fuel, the fuel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44472 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

pumps and wetted lines will need to be 

completely purged by the new fuel to 

ensure that the ship is burning the 

correct fuel for the area. This purging 

will vary from ship to ship due to 

engine capacity, design, operation, and 

efficiency. Provided the ship has 

separate service tanks for distillate and 

residual fuel (most, if not all, vessels 

do), fuel switching time should be 

limited only by maximum allowable 

rate of fuel temperature change. 

Additionally, for a longer operation 

period such as would occur while in an 

ECA, we investigated several other fuel 

switching topics to ensure that vessels 

would not have long-term issues from 

operating on the marine distillate fuels. 

Marine distillate fuels are similar in 

composition and structure to other 

petroleum-based middle distillate fuels 

such as diesel and No. 2 heating oil, but 

they have a much lower allowable 

sulfur content than residual fuels. This 

lower sulfur content means that by 

combusting marine distillate fuel in 

their propulsion engines, vessels 

operating within the ECA would meet 

the stricter SOX requirements. However, 

sulfur content is not the only difference 

between the marine residual and 

distillate fuels; they also have different 

densities, viscosities, and other 

specification limits. 

The maritime industry has analyzed 

the differences between residual and 

distillate fuel compositions to address 

any potential issues that could arise 

from switching operation of a C3 engine 

from residual fuel to distillate fuel. The 

results from this research has evolved 

into routine operational switching 

procedures that ensure a safe and 

efficient way for the C3 engines to 

switch operation between the residual 

and distillate fuels. A brief summary of 

the fuel differences, as well as any 

potential issues and their usual 

solutions, is presented below. 

(i) Fuel Density 

Due to its chemical composition, 

residual fuel has a slightly higher 

density than marine distillates. Using a 

less dense fuel could affect the ballast 

of a ship at sea and would have to 

require compensation. Therefore, when 

beginning to operate on the distillate 

fuel, the vessel operator would have to 

pay attention to the vessel’s ballast and 

may have to compensate for any 

changes that may occur. We anticipate 

that these procedures would be similar 

to operating the vessel with partiallyfull fuel tanks. 

Another consideration when 

switching to a lower density fuel is the 

change in volumetric energy content. 

Distillate fuel has a lower energy 

density content on a per gallon basis 

when compared to the residual fuel; 

however, per ton, distillate fuel’s energy 

density is larger than the residual fuel. 

This means that when switching from 

residual fuel to distillate fuel, if the 

vessel’s tanks are volumetrically limited 

(i.e., the tanks can only hold a set 

quantity of fuel gallons), the distance a 

vessel can travel on the distillate fuel 

may be slightly shorter than the distance 

the vessel could travel on the residual 

fuel due to the lower volumetric energy 

content of distillate fuel, which could 

require compensation. This distance 

reduction would be approximately 5% 

and would only be of concern while the 

vessel was operating on the distillate 

fuel (i.e., while in the U.S. ECA) as the 

majority of the time the vessel will be 

operating on the residual fuel. However, 

if the vessel is limited by weight, the 

higher energy content per ton of fuel 

would provide an operational 

advantage. 

(ii) Kinematic Viscosity 

Residual fuel’s kinematic viscosity is 

much higher than marine distillate 

fuel’s viscosity. Viscosity is the 

‘thickness’ of the fuel. If this parameter 

is lowered from the typical value used 

within a pump, some issues could arise. 

If a distillate fuel is used in a system 

that typically operates on residual fuel, 

the decrease in viscosity could cause 

problems with high-pressure fuel 

injection pumps due to the increased 

potential for internal leakage of the 

thinner fuel through the clearances in 

the pumping elements. Internal leakage 

is part of the design of a fuel pump and 

is used in part to lubricate the pumping 

elements. However, if this leakage rate 

is too high, the fuel pump could 

produce less than optimal fuel injection 

pressures. If the distillate fuel’s lower 

viscosity becomes an issue, it is possible 

to cool the fuel and increase the 

viscosity above 2 centistokes, which is 

how most vessels operate today during 

routine fuel switchovers. 

(iii) Flash Point 

Flash point is the temperature at 

which the vapors off the fuel ignite with 

an outside ignition source. This can be 

a safety concern if the owner/operator 

uses an onroad diesel fuel rather than a 

designated ‘marine distillate’ fuel for 

operation because marine fuels have a 

specified minimum flash point of 60 °F 

(15.6 °C) to ensure onboard safety, 

whereas onroad diesel has a minimum 

specified flash point of 52 °F (11.1 °C). 

However, since most distillate fuels are 

created in the same fashion, typical 

flash points of onroad diesel are above 

60 °F (15.6 °C), and would meet the 

marine fuel specification for this 

property. If the flash point of the fuel 

being used on-board the vessel becomes 

a concern, the operator/bunker supplier 

would have to ensure that the vessel is 

obtaining fuel with a minimum flash 

point of 60 °F (15.6 °C) via the bunker 

delivery note or through fuel testing. 

(iv) Lubricity 

Lubricity is the ability of the fuel to 

lubricate the engine/pump during 

operation. Fuels with higher viscosity 

and high sulfur content tend to have 

very good lubricity without the use of 

specific lubricity-improving additives. 

Refining processes that lower fuel sulfur 

levels and their viscosities can also 

remove some of the naturally-occurring 

lubricating compounds. Severe 

hydrotreating of fuel to obtain ultra-low 

sulfur levels can result in poor fuel 

lubricity. Therefore, refineries 

commonly add lubricity improvers to 

ultra-low sulfur diesel. This will most 

likely become a concern when very low 

levels of sulfur are present in the fuel 

and/or the fuel has been hydrotreated to 

reduce sulfur, e.g., if ultra-low sulfur 

highway diesel (ULSD) is used in the 

engine. Several groups have conducted 

studies on this subject, and for some 

systems where fuel lubricity has become 

an issue, lubricity additives can be 

utilized or the owner/operator can 

install a lubricating system for the fuel 

pump. 

(v) Lube Oil 

Lube oils are used to neutralize acids 

formed in combustion, most commonly 

sulfuric acids created from sulfur in the 

fuel. The quantity of acid-neutralizing 

additives in lube oil should match the 

total sulfur content of the fuel. If 

excessive amounts of these additives are 

used, they may create deposits on 

engine components. Marine engine 

manufacturers have recommended that 

lube oil only needs to be adjusted if the 

fuel is switched for more than one week, 

but the oil feed rate may need to be 

reduced as well as engine operating 

power. Additional research has been 

conducted in this area and several oil 

companies have been working to create 

a lubricating oil that would be 

compatible with several different types 

of fuel. 

(vi) Asphaltenes 

Asphaltenes are heavy, non-volatile, 

aromatic compounds which are 

contained naturally in some types of 

crude oil. Asphaltenes may precipitate 

out of the fuel solution when a fuel rich 

in carbon disulfide, such as residual 

fuel, is mixed with a lighter 

hydrocarbon fuel, such as n-pentane or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44473 

99 ‘‘Proposed amendments for resolution 

MEPC.170(57)—Guidelines for Exhaust Gas 

Cleaning Systems,’’ Submitted by the Institute of 

Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, to the 

59th session of the Marine Environment Protection 

Committee, International Maritime Organization, 

MEPC 59/10/5, April 10, 2009. 

n-heptane found in some distillate fuels. 

When these heavy aromatic compounds 

fall out of the fuel solution, they can 

clog filters, create deposition along the 

fuel lines/combustion chamber, seize 

the fuel injection pump, or cause other 

system troubles. This risk can be 

minimized through onboard test kits 

and by purchasing distillate and 

residual fuel from the same refiner. 

However, according to the California Air 

Resources Board, the formation of 

asphaltenes is not seen as an issue based 

on data from previous maritime rules. 

As can be seen, if vessel operators 

choose to operate on marine distillate 

fuel while in the ECA, some prudence 

is required. However, as described 

above, any issues that could arise with 

switching between residual and 

distillate fuel are minimal and can be 

addressed through changes to operating 

procedures. To conduct a successful 

switchover between the residual and 

marine distillate fuels, vessel operators 

will need to keep the above issues in 

mind and follow the engine 

manufacturer’s standard fuel switching 

procedure. 

(b) SOX Scrubber 

Annex VI allows for alternative 

compliance strategies in including the 

use of exhaust gas cleaning systems 

(EGCS). EGCS systems used today for 

sulfur control are commonly known as 

SOX scrubbers. This section describes 

the technological feasibility of scrubbers 

and how scrubbers may be used to 

achieve equivalent emission reductions 

as fuel switching. 

SOX scrubbers are capable of 

removing up to 95 percent of SOX from 

ship exhaust using the ability of 

seawater to absorb SOX. SOX scrubbers 

have been widely used in stationary 

source applications, where they are a 

well-established SOX reduction 

technology. In these applications, lime 

or caustic soda are typically used to 

neutralize the sulfuric acid in the 

washwater. While SOX scrubbers are not 

widely used on ocean-going vessels, 

there have been prototype installations 

to demonstrate their viability in this 

application such as the Krystallon 

systems installed on the P&O ferry Pride 

of Kent and the Holland America Line 

cruise ship the ms Zaandam. These 

demonstrations have shown scrubbers 

can replace and fit into the space 

occupied by the exhaust silencer units 

and can work well in marine 

applications. 

There are two main scrubber 

technologies. The first is an open-loop 

design which uses seawater as exhaust 

washwater and discharges the treated 

washwater back to the sea. Such openloop designs are also referred to as 

seawater scrubbers. In a seawater 

scrubber, the exhaust gases are brought 

into contact with seawater, either 

through spraying seawater into the 

exhaust stream or routing the exhaust 

gases through a water bath. The SO2 in 

the exhaust reacts with oxygen to 

produce sulfur trioxide which then 

reacts with water to form sulfuric acid. 

The sulfuric acid in the water then 

reacts with carbonate and other salts in 

the seawater to form sulfates which may 

be removed from the exhaust. The 

washwater is then treated to remove 

solids and raise the pH prior to 

discharge back to the sea. The solids are 

collected as sludge and held for proper 

disposal ashore. 

A second type of SOX scrubber which 

uses a closed-loop design is also feasible 

for use on marine vessels. In a closed 

loop system, fresh water is used as 

washwater, and caustic soda is injected 

into the washwater to neutralize the 

sulfur in the exhaust. A small portion of 

the washwater is bled off and treated to 

remove sludge, which is held and 

disposed of at port, as with the openloop design. The treated effluent is held 

onboard or discharged at open sea. 

Additional fresh water is added to the 

system as needed. While this design is 

not completely closed-loop, it can be 

operated in zero discharge mode for 

periods of time. 

Exhaust gas scrubbers can achieve 

reductions in particulate matter as well. 

By removing sulfur from the exhaust, 

the scrubber removes most of the direct 

sulfate PM. Sulfates are a large portion 

of the PM from ships operating on high 

sulfur fuels. By reducing the SOX

emissions, the scrubber will also control 

much of the secondary PM formed in 

the atmosphere from SOX emissions. 

However, simply mixing alkaline water 

in the exhaust does not necessarily 

remove much of the carbonaceous PM, 

ash, or metals in the exhaust. While SO2

associates with the washwater, particles 

can only be washed out of the exhaust 

through direct contact with the water. In 

simple scrubber designs, much of the 

mass of particles can reside in gas 

bubbles and escape out the exhaust. 

Manufacturers have been improving 

their scrubber designs to address 

carbonaceous soot and other fine 

particles. Finer water sprays, longer 

mixing times, and turbulent action 

would be expected to directionally 

reduce PM emissions through contact 

impactions. One scrubber design uses 

an electric charge on the water to attract 

particles in the exhaust to the water. In 

another design, demisters are used that 

help effectively wash out PM from the 

exhaust stream. In either of these 

designs, however, the systems would be 

effective at removing SO2 from the 

exhaust even if the additional hardware 

needed for non-sulfate PM reduction 

were not used. 

Annex VI does not present specific 

exhaust gas limits that are deemed to be 

equivalent to the primary standard of 

operating on lower sulfur fuel. Prior to 

the recent amendments to Annex VI, 

Regulation 13 included a limit of 6 g/ 

kW-hr SO2 as an alternative to the 

15,000 ppm sulfur limit for sulfur 

emission control areas. Under the 

amended requirements, the specific SO2

limit was removed and more general 

language on alternative approaches was 

included. Specifically, Regulation 4 of 

MARPOL Annex VI now states ‘‘The 

Administration of a Party may allow any 

fitting, material, appliance or apparatus 

to be fitted in a ship or other 

procedures, alternative fuel oils, or 

compliance methods used as a 

alternative to that required by this 

Annex if such fitting, material, 

appliance or apparatus or other 

procedures, alternative fuel oils, or 

compliance methods are at least as 

effective in terms of emissions 

reductions as that required by this 

Annex, including any of the standards 

set forth in regulations 13 and 14.’’ 

IMO is developing guidelines for the 

use of exhaust gas cleaning devices such 

as SOX scrubbers as an alternative to 

operating on lower sulfur fuel.99 These 

draft guidelines include a table of SO2

limits intended to correspond with 

various fuel sulfur levels. Based on the 

methodology that was used to determine 

the SO2 limit of 6.0 g/kW-hr for existing 

ECAs, the corresponding limit is 0.4 g/ 

kW-hr SO2 for a 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur 

limit. This limit is based on an assumed 

fuel consumption rate of 200 g/kW-hr 

and the assumption that all sulfur in the 

fuel is converted to SO2 in the exhaust. 

The draft IMO guidelines also allow for 

an alternative approach of basing the 

limit on a ratio of SO2 to CO2. This has 

the advantage of being easier to measure 

during in-use monitoring. In addition, 

this ratio holds more constant at lower 

loads than a brake-specific limit, which 

would approach infinity as power 

approaches zero. For the existing 15,000 

ppm fuel sulfur limit in ECAs, a SO2

(ppm)/CO2(%) limit of 65 was 

developed. The equivalent limit for a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44474 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

100Proposed Rule, 56 FR 45,866 at 45867 (1991); 

Final Rule 59 FR 86969, 86971 (1994); see Engine 

Manufacturers Assoc. v. EPA, 88 F.3d 1075, 1087 

(D.C.Cir. 1996). 

101Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 37 kW; Final Rule, 64 FR 73300 (December 

29, 1999). 

102Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 37 kW; Final Rule, 64 FR 73300 (December 

29, 1999) at 73302, discussing American Customs 

Brokerage Co., Inc., a/c Astral Corp. v. United 

States, 375 F.Supp. 1360, 1366 (Cust.Ct. 1974). 

1,000 ppm fuel sulfur level is 4.0 SO2

(ppm)/CO2(%). 

Scrubbers are effective at reducing 

SO2 emissions and sulfate PM emissions 

from the exhaust. However, as discussed 

above, the effectiveness of the scrubber 

at removing PM emissions other than 

sulfates is dependent on the scrubber 

design. In addition to sulfate PM 

reductions, switching from residual fuel 

to distillate fuel results in reductions in 

organic PM and metallic ash particles in 

the exhaust. As such, consideration 

should be given to non-sulfate PM when 

making the determination that using a 

given ECGS design is ‘‘at least as 

effective’’ as operating on lower sulfur 

fuel to control PM emissions. 

We would not consider an exhaust gas 

scrubber to be an acceptable control 

strategy for reducing NOX emissions. In 

a typical diesel exhaust gas mixture, 

NOX is composed of roughly 5–10% 

NO2, with the majority of the remainder 

in the form of NO. NO2 is soluble in 

water, and therefore may be removed by 

the water in the scrubber. It is possible 

to treat the exhaust upstream of the 

scrubber to convert more of the NOX to 

NO2, thereby facilitating the use of a 

scrubber to remove NO2. However, we 

are concerned that this would add to 

nitrogen loading of the water in which 

the ship is operating. As discussed in 

Section II.B.1, nitrogen loading can lead 

to serious water quality impacts. The 

issue of NOX scrubbing is addressed in 

the draft IMO EGCS guidelines by 

limiting the amount of NOX that may be 

removed by the scrubber. 

Water-soluble components of the 

exhaust gas such as SO2, SO3, and NO2

form sulfates and nitrates that are 

dissolved into the discharge water. 

Scrubber washwater also includes 

suspended solids, heavy metals, 

hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH). Before the 

scrubber water is discharged, there are 

several approaches that may be used to 

process the scrubber water to remove 

solid particles. Heavier particles may be 

trapped in a settling or sludge tank for 

disposal. The removal process may 

include cyclone technology similar to 

that used to separate water from 

residual fuel prior to delivery to the 

engine. However, depending on particle 

size distribution and particle density, 

settling tanks and hydrodynamic 

separation may not effectively remove 

all suspended solids. Other approaches 

include filtration and flocculation 

techniques. Flocculation, which is used 

in many waste water treatment plants, 

refers to adding a chemical agent to the 

water that will cause the fine particles 

to aggregate so that they may be filtered 

out. Sludge separated from the scrubber 

water would be stored on board until it 

is disposed of at proper facilities. 

The draft IMO guidelines for the use 

of exhaust gas cleaning devices such as 

SOX scrubbers include recommended 

monitoring and water discharge 

practices. The washwater should be 

continuously monitored for pH, PAHs 

and turbidity. Further, the IMO 

guidance include specifications for 

these same items, as well as nitrate 

content when washwater is discharged 

in ports, harbors or estuaries. Finally, 

the IMO guidance recommends that 

washwater residue (sludge) be delivered 

ashore to adequate reception facilities 

and not discharged to the sea or burned 

on board. Also note that any discharges 

directly into waters of the United States 

may be subject to the Clean Water Act 

or other U.S. regulation. 

D. ECA Designation and ForeignFlagged Vessels 

In our previous marine diesel engine 

rulemakings, EPA did not extend our 

Clean Air Act standards to engines on 

vessels flagged by other countries. In 

our 2003 rule, many states and localities 

expressed concern about the high levels 

of emissions from ocean-going vessels. 

We examined our position and 

concluded that no change was necessary 

at that time because the Tier 1 standards 

we adopted for Category 3 engines on 

U.S. vessels were the same as those 

contained in MARPOL Annex VI. We 

indicated we would re-examine this 

issue in our current rulemaking and 

would also review the progress made by 

the international community toward the 

adoption of new more stringent 

international standards that reflect the 

application of advanced emission 

control technologies. 

We received comments from a broad 

range of interested parties on the 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) for this 

rulemaking. Generally, these 

commenters remain concerned about 

the contribution of ocean-going vessels 

to their air quality. Many took the 

position that EPA should cover engines 

on foreign-flagged OGV under Clean Air 

Act section 213 since they account for 

the vast majority of OGV emissions in 

the United States and because of their 

perception, at the time these comments 

were submitted, that the international 

process to set stringent standards was 

stalled. 

In this section, we provide 

background on EPA’s past statements 

with regard to the application of our 

Clean Air Act section 213 standards to 

engines on foreign-flagged vessels, and 

summarize comments we received on 

this issue in response to our ANPRM. 

Because the NOX standards adopted in 

the amendments to Annex VI are 

comparable in stringency and timing to 

our proposed CAA NOX standards, we 

do not believe it is necessary to extend 

our Clean Air Act Tier 2 and 3 standards 

to engines on foreign-flagged vessels at 

this time. Therefore, this proposal does 

not seek to resolve the issue of whether 

section 213 of the Act allows us to set 

standards for engines on foreign-flagged 

vessels. However, as further explained 

below, our decision rests on the timely 

adoption of an amendment to Annex VI 

designating the U.S. coastal waters as an 

ECA, since the most stringent of the 

NOX standards will be applicable in 

such areas. If the amendment 

designating a U.S. ECA is not timely 

adopted by the Parties to IMO, we will 

revisit this issue. 

We request comments on all aspects 

of this discussion. 

(1) What Is EPA’s Current Approach for 

Engines on Foreign-Flagged Vessels? 

Section 213 of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7547) authorizes regulation of 

‘‘new nonroad engine[s]’’ and ‘‘new 

nonroad vehicle[s].’’ Because Title II of 

the Clean Air Act does not define either 

‘‘new nonroad engine’’ or ‘‘new nonroad 

vehicle,’’ our early interpretations of 

these terms with regard to our other 

nonroad programs were reasonably 

modeled after the statutory definitions 

of ‘‘new motor vehicle engine’’ and 

‘‘new motor vehicle’’ found in section 

216(3) of the CAA.100 Those early 

interpretations focused on engines and 

vehicles freshly built or imported. 

Similarly, in our first phase of marine 

diesel emission standards (our 1999 

rule), we modeled our definitions of 

‘‘new’’ marine engine and vessel after 

the existing ‘‘new nonroad engine’’ and 

‘‘new nonroad vehicle’’ regulatory 

definitions.101 We also referred to 

Department of the Treasury rulings on 

the meaning of ‘‘import’’ for customs 

purposes.102 Specifically, Treasury 

rulings for marine engines and vessels 

include as imports only those marine 

engines and vessels intended to remain 

in the United States permanently. 

Because engines on foreign-flagged 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44475 

103Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 30 Liters/Cylinder; Final Rule, 68 FR 9746 

at 9759 (February 28, 2003). 

104Control of Emissions From New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters 

per Cylinder: Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 72 FR 69522 at 69545 (December 7, 

2007). 

105Resolution MEPC.176(58), ‘‘Amendments to 

the Annex of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the 

International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships, 1973, As Modified by the 

Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto,’’ MEPC 58/23/ 

Add.1 Annex 13, October 10, 2008. 

106 33 U.S.C. 1901–1912. 

vessels were only entering U.S. ports 

temporarily, with no intention to remain 

permanently, we declined to treat those 

engines and vessels as imported and, 

thus, we determined that these engines 

are not ‘‘new’’ marine engines or vessels 

for purposes of section 213 of the CAA. 

Therefore, in that first rulemaking for 

diesel marine engines, we did not apply 

the CAA program to engines on foreignflagged vessels. 

In our subsequent rulemaking to 

establish Clean Air Act emission 

standards for Category 3 engines,103 we 

re-examined this background to reconsider the issue of whether engines 

on foreign-flagged vessels should be 

included within the scope of our Clean 

Air Act standards. Because the NOX

standards we adopted in that rule were 

near-term standards that were 

equivalent to the then-MARPOL Annex 

I NOX standards, and because we 

adopted a regulatory deadline to 

consider an additional tier of NOX

standards (which are the subject of the 

current rulemaking), we deferred 

making a decision on whether we have 

the discretion to set standards for such 

engines until the present rulemaking. 

We decided that even if we have the 

discretion to interpret ‘‘new marine 

engine’’ to include engines on foreignflagged vessels, it would be appropriate 

not to exercise such discretion at that 

time since the near-term standards that 

we would be adopting in that rule 

already applied to foreign-flagged 

vessels through Annex VI. We explained 

that foreign-flagged vessels were 

expected to comply with the current 

MARPOL standards whether or not they 

were also subject to the equivalent 

Clean Air Act standards and, 

consequently, no significant emission 

reductions would be achieved by 

treating foreign-flagged vessels as ‘‘new’’ 

for purposes of the near-term standards 

in that final rule. However, we also 

indicated that we would consider, in the 

subsequent rulemaking, whether we 

need to resolve under what 

circumstances we may or should define 

new nonroad engine and vessel to 

include foreign-flagged engines and 

vessels. As part of that determination, 

we indicated we would also assess the 

progress made by the international 

community toward adopting new more 

stringent international consensus 

standards that reflect advanced 

emission-control technologies. 

Accordingly, we raised this issue in 

our 2007 ANPRM,104 indicating that we 

would evaluate whether we should redefine new nonroad engines and vessels 

to include foreign-flagged engines and 

vessels. Likewise, we indicated that as 

part of that evaluation, we would also 

assess the progress made by the 

international community toward the 

adoption of new more stringent 

international standards that reflect 

advanced emission-control 

technologies. 

(2) Is EPA Proposing To Change the 

Current Approach to Engines on 

Foreign-Flagged Vessels? 

Since the ANPRM was published, the 

International Maritime Organization 

adopted amendments to MARPOL 

Annex VI. These amendments, adopted 

in October 2008, contain stringent new 

tiers of NOX emission limits for marine 

diesel engines as well as new fuel sulfur 

limits.105 These requirements are 

applicable in the United States to both 

domestic and foreign-flagged vessels 

through operation of the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships (APPS), as 

amended in 2008.106 Amendments to 

the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

were adopted in 2008 specifically to 

provide the statutory mechanism to 

enforce the Annex VI requirements on 

domestic and foreign-flagged vessels 

and to enforce the ECA requirements 

once a U.S. ECA is designated under 

Annex VI. 

The most stringent of the new Annex 

VI standards requires engines to meet 

Tier III NOX standards. Under the 

Annex, these requirements would apply 

in designated ECAs. At the time the 

amendments were adopted, countries 

were invited to propose areas for ECA 

designation so that the full benefit of 

these technology-forcing standards 

could be realized by areas that 

demonstrate a need for them. As 

explained above, the United States and 

Canada recently submitted a proposal to 

amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate 

U.S. and Canadian coastal areas as an 

ECA. Due to the human health and 

welfare needs for these controls as 

documented in the ECA application, we 

expect that the Parties to Annex VI will 

adopt this amendment at the 60th 

Session of the Marine Environment 

Protection Committee (MEPC), to be 

held in March 2010. Once the ECA is 

adopted by the Parties and enters into 

force, U.S.- and foreign-flagged ships 

will be subject to the stringent 

provisions of MARPOL Annex VI within 

the ECA. Since the ECA was developed 

to protect air quality in port and inland 

areas, these requirements will also 

apply in U.S. internal waters. The U.S. 

will enforce these requirements 

pursuant to APPS. 

More specifically, under the recentlyadopted NOX amendments to Annex VI, 

in 2016, the engines on new ships 

operating in ECAs must meet Tier III 

NOX standards requiring advancedtechnology engines designed to cut 

emissions of ozone-forming NOX by 

roughly 80%. These MARPOL Annex VI 

Tier III NOX standards are comparable 

to the CAA Tier III NOX standards we 

are proposing in this Federal Register 

notice and are more fully described in 

Section III. When operating outside a 

designated ECA, the engines must meet 

the global Tier II NOX standard, which 

otherwise applies to engines on ships 

beginning in 2011 and will require a 

20% reduction from the current Tier I 

levels. Thus, assuming the U.S. ECA is 

adopted, NOX standards comparable to 

those we are proposing in this NPRM 

under section 213(a)(3) of the CAA will 

be applicable to engines on foreignflagged vessels operating in all U.S. 

waters and will be enforced under the 

authority of APPS. 

Because we expect the proposed 

amendment to Annex VI designating a 

North American ECA will be adopted in 

a timely manner, the result of the 

combined CAA program and the ECA 

designation will be the application of 

comparable NOX standards to domesticand foreign-flagged vessels which will 

be enforceable under a combination of 

the Act and APPS. As a result, it would 

not be necessary to resolve the issue of 

whether we have the authority to 

impose section 213 CAA standards on 

foreign-flagged vessels. For this reason, 

we are not proposing to change our 

current approach with regard to the 

application of the Clean Air Act marine 

diesel engine standards to engines on 

foreign-flagged vessels. The conditions 

that led us to this conclusion in 2003 

are the same today, assuming approval 

of the North American ECA. Because 

this decision not to address our 

authority to regulate foreign-flagged 

vessels at this time is predicated upon 

timely approval of the U.S.-Canada 

proposal to amend Annex VI to 

designate the North American ECA, we 

will revisit this approach if the ECA is 

not adopted as expected. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44476 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

107See, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, 

Document No. 0084.1 (March 6, 2008); Clean Air 

Task Force (CATF), EPA–HQ–2007–0121, 

Document No. 0086.1 (March 6, 2008); 

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), EPA–HQ– 

2007–0121, Document No. 0097.1 (March 6, 2008); 

Earthjustice, EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document 

No. 0093.1 (March 6, 2008); Environmental Law & 

Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School (HLS), EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document No. 0082.1 (March 

6, 2008). 

108See, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, 

Document No. 0084.1 (March 6, 2008); Clean Air 

Task Force (CATF), EPA–HQ–2007–0121, 

Document No. 0086.1 (March 6, 2008). 

109See, e.g., Environmental Law & Policy Clinic 

at Harvard Law School (HLS), EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2007–0121, Document No. 0082.1 (March 6, 2008). 

110See, e.g., American Petroleum Institute (API), 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document No. 0098.2 

(March 6, 2008) and American Petroleum Institute 

(API), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document No. 

0098.6 (March 6, 2008). 

111Clean Air Task Force (CATF), EPA–HQ–2007– 

0121, Document No. 0086.1 (March 6, 2008) at 25. 

112South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document 

No. 0084.1 (March 6, 2008) at 6 and 7, quoting 

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 

119, 131 (2005) (emphasis added by commenter). 

113South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document 

No. 0084.1 (March 6, 2008) at 8. 

114See, Environmental Law & Policy Clinic at 

Harvard Law School (HLS), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121, Document No. 0082.1 (March 6, 2008) at 3 

and 4. 

115Clean Air Task Force (CATF), EPA–HQ–2007– 

0121.1, Document No. 0086.1 (March 6, 2008) at 25. 

116South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document 

No. 0084.1 (March 6, 2008) at 5. 117South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, Document 

No. 0084.1 (March 6, 2008) at 6. 

118Environmental Law & Policy Clinic at Harvard 

Law School (HLS), EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121, 

Document No. 0082.1 (March 6, 2008) at 5 

(emphasis included with comment). 

119Clean Air Task Force (CATF), EPA–HQ–2007– 

0121, Document No. 0086.1 (March 6, 2008) at 25. 

(3) What Comments Did EPA Receive on 

This Issue? 

EPA received a number of comments 

in response to the ANPRM on the issue 

of whether EPA should or could address 

emissions from engines on foreignflagged vessels. Most commenters 

express a need to include engines on 

foreign-flagged vessels given the 

significant contribution of such vessels’ 

emissions to the air pollution problem 

we are addressing.107 Most of these 

same commenters also express the 

position that EPA has the authority to 

include engines on foreign-flagged 

vessels as part of its section 213 

emission reduction program.108 Other 

comments take the position that EPA 

not only has the authority to cover such 

engines and their emissions, but EPA 

has an obligation to do so.109 In 

contrast, EPA also received comments 

opposing the view that EPA has such 

authority and encouraging EPA to work 

with international bodies to resolve 

concerns about such emissions.110 A 

brief summary of these positions 

follows. 

Generally, environmental nongovernmental organizations and state air 

quality control authorities commenting 

on the ANPRM support the view that 

EPA should include engines on foreignflagged vessels in its Clean Air Act 

emission reduction program. They state 

that ‘‘there is no legal impediment to 

regulating the emissions of foreignflagged ships operating in U.S. waters. 

U.S. courts have long held that U.S. 

laws apply only within the territorial 

jurisdiction of the U.S., at least in the 

absence of evidence of contrary 

Congressional intent.’’ 111

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) takes the position 

that a U.S. statute is presumed to apply 

to a foreign-flagged vessel in United 

States waters unless the statute sought 

to regulate ‘‘matters that involve only 

the internal order and discipline of the 

vessel’’ or ‘‘only the internal operations 

of the ship.’’ 112 Because the United 

States has a vital interest in reducing 

pollutants from all visiting ships and 

because ‘‘the ‘physical structure’ of a 

ship is not a matter that ‘concerns only 

the internal operations of the ship,’ ’’ 

SCAQMD believes that section 213 of 

the CAA should be presumed to apply 

to engines on foreign-flagged vessels. 

Moreover, SCAQMD comments that, 

even if a clear statement of intent to 

cover engines on foreign-flagged vessels 

were required, sections 213(a)(3) and (4) 

unequivocally apply ‘‘to all such 

nonroad engines, without 

qualifications.’’ 113

Similarly, the Environmental Law & 

Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School 

(HLS) identifies examples of agencies 

applying statutory requirements to 

foreign-flagged vessels, even if 

significant modifications to the vessel 

may be required and ‘‘when the 

governing statute does not explicitly 

direct or otherwise authorize the agency 

to exempt [such vessels].’’ 114

On interpretation of the term ‘‘new 

nonroad engine,’’ commenters 

supporting regulation of emissions from 

foreign-flagged vessels believe that 

section 213 provides broad authority to 

regulate any emissions from new 

nonroad engines and vehicles, and 

although the statute does not define 

what a ‘‘new nonroad engine’’ is, 

neither does the statute distinguish 

‘‘between U.S.-flagged and foreignflagged ships for purposes of emission 

standards.’’ 115 Thus, the ambiguity, if 

any, should be resolved in favor of 

regulating such engines. 

In that vein, SCAQMD would identify 

any engine or vessel constructed after 

the effective date of an EPA rule as 

‘‘new’’ and subject to the applicable 

standard ‘‘regardless of whether those 

vessels are foreign-flagged’’ and 

regardless of whether the engine or 

vessel is imported. Further, SCAQMD 

stated that: ‘‘While it might not be 

known with certainty for some ships at 

the time they are built whether they are 

going to travel to U.S. ports, in most 

cases it is likely that this would be 

known, and the shipbuilder could 

always preserve the ship’s ability to do 

so by meeting EPA’s standards.’’ 116

SCAQMD also addresses an EPA 

position in an earlier rulemaking 

regarding EPA’s interpretation of ‘‘new’’ 

to include ‘‘import’’ as that term is 

interpreted under U.S. customs laws, 

and whether engines on foreign-flagged 

vessels visiting the U.S. are therefore 

imported. In that context, SCAQMD 

states: ‘‘the fact that a vessel is not 

imported does not mean it is not ‘new’ 

within the ordinary meaning of the 

term. * * * The inclusion of the term 

‘imported’ was to cover vessels that 

otherwise would not be considered 

‘new,’ in order to prevent 

circumvention. Thus, the definition of 

‘imported’ does not limit EPA’s ability 

to apply its rules to vessels that are in 

fact ‘new,’ even though foreign-flagged. 

We believe the ordinary meaning of 

‘new’ is sufficient to cover this 

concept.’’ 117 HLS similarly comments 

that: ‘‘Section 213 can reasonably be 

interpreted to exclude cars and trucks 

that have neither been manufactured in 

nor imported into the United States 

because those excluded cars and trucks 

do not pollute air in the U.S. Neither 

Section 213 nor Section 216, however, 

authorizes EPA to exclude marine 

vessels that do use and pollute U.S. 

ports, whether those vessels can 

somehow be deemed ‘imported’ or ‘not 

imported.’ ’’ 118

In contrast, Clean Air Task Force 

(CATF) believes it would be ‘‘reasonable 

for the Agency to continue to interpret 

‘new nonroad engine’ as including 

‘imported’ nonroad engines,’’ but that 

EPA is not obligated to ‘‘defer to 

interpretations of that term under U.S. 

customs laws, in view of the 

dramatically different purposes of such 

laws.’’ 119 CATF explains that ‘‘[w]hile 

the purpose of application of the 

customs laws to ‘imports’ is to impose 

a duty on merchandise that is brought 

into the country on a permanent basis, 

the purpose of the application of the 

Clean Air Act to ‘imports’ is far 

different: that is, to reduce pollution 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44477 

120Clean Air Task Force (CATF), EPA–HQ–2007– 

0121, Document No. 0086.1 (March 6, 2008) at 25– 

26. 

121American Petroleum Institute (API), EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–0121, Document No. 0098.6 (March 6, 

2008) at 2–3. 

from sources operating within the 

United States, including its territorial 

waters and ports. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to conclude that under the 

Act, whether a vessel is operating in 

U.S. waters permanently, or whether it 

is flying a U.S. flag of registry, should 

not be conditions for regulating its 

emissions.’’ 120

Some commenters, however, take the 

opposite position. API comments that 

‘‘EPA’s authority to regulate non-U.S. 

vessels/engines that are temporarily in 

U.S waters turns on whether such 

vessels/engines are ‘imported’ under the 

CAA,’’ that EPA appropriately relied in 

the past on the customs law’s 

interpretation of ‘‘import,’’ and that 

‘‘Congress did not intend to grant 

authority to EPA to regulate non-U.S. 

flagged vessels that are only in U.S. 

waters temporarily.’’ 121

EPA appreciates all of the comments 

we received on this. Although we 

continue to believe it is reasonable not 

to amend our current definition of new 

engine, we intend to revisit that issue 

without delay if the U.S. ECA is not 

timely considered and adopted. 

VI. Certification and Compliance 

Program 

This section describes the regulatory 

changes proposed for the CAA Category 

3 engine compliance program. In 

general, these changes are being 

proposed to ensure that the benefits of 

the standards are realized in-use and 

throughout the useful life of these 

engines, and to incorporate lessons 

learned over the last few years from the 

existing test and compliance program. 

The most obvious change is that we 

are proposing to apply the plain 

language regulations of 40 CFR 1042 to 

Category 3 engines. These part 1042 

regulations were adopted in 2008 for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines (73 

FR 25098, May 6, 2008). They were 

structured to contain the provisions that 

are specific to marine engines and 

vessels in part 1042, and apply the parts 

1065 and 1068 for other provisions not 

specific to marine engines. This 

approach is not intended to significantly 

change the compliance program from 

the program currently applicable to 

Category 3 engines under 40 CFR part 

94, except as specifically noted in this 

notice (and we are not reopening for 

comment the substance of any part of 

the program that remains unchanged 

substantively). As proposed, these plain 

language regulations would supersede 

the regulations in part 94 for Category 

3 engines beginning with the 2011 

model year. 

The changes from the existing 

programs are described below along 

with other notable aspects of the 

compliance program. These changes are 

necessary to implement the new 

standards as well as to implement the 

Annex VI program as required under the 

amendments to the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships. 

Finally, we are also including several 

proposed changes and clarifications to 

the compliance program that are not 

specific to Category 3 engines. Some of 

these would apply only for marine 

diesel engines below 30 liters per 

cylinder displacement. 

A. Compliance Provisions for Category 3 

Engines 

In general, we are proposing to retain 

the certification and compliance 

provisions finalized with the Tier 1 

standards for Category 3 engines. These 

include testing, durability, labeling, 

maintenance, prohibited acts, etc. 

However, we believe additional testing 

and compliance provisions will be 

necessary for new standards requiring 

more advanced technology and more 

sophisticated emission control systems. 

These changes, as well as other 

modifications to our certification and 

compliance provisions for Category 3 

engines, are discussed below. 

Our certification process is similar to 

the process specified in the Annex VI 

NOX Technical Code (NTC) for precertification. However, the Clean Air 

Act specifies certain requirements for 

our certification program that are 

different from the NTC requirements. 

The EPA approach differs most 

significantly from the NTC in three 

areas. First, the NTC allows but does not 

require certification of engines before 

installation (known as pre-certification 

under the NTC), while EPA does require 

it. Second, we include various 

provisions to hold the engine 

manufacturer responsible for the 

durability of emission controls, while 

the NTC holds the engine manufacturer 

liable only before the engine is placed 

into service. Finally, we specify broader 

temperature ranges and allow 

manufacturers less discretion in setting 

engine parameters for testing, with the 

goal of adopting test procedures that 

represent a wide range of normal in-use 

operation. We believe the regulations in 

this final rule are sufficiently consistent 

with NTC that manufacturers can 

continue to use a single harmonized 

compliance strategy to certify under 

both systems. 

(1) Testing 

We are proposing to largely continue 

the testing requirements that currently 

apply for Category 3 engines with a few 

exceptions. 

(a) General Test Procedures 

We are proposing to apply the general 

engine testing procedures of 40 CFR part 

1065 to Category 3 engines. This is part 

of our ongoing initiative to update the 

content, organization and writing style 

of our regulations. For each engine 

sector for which we have recently 

promulgated standards (such as smaller 

marine diesel engines), we refer to one 

common set of test procedures in part 

1065. This is because we recognized 

that a single set of test procedures 

would allow for improvements to occur 

simultaneously across engine sectors. A 

single set of test procedures is easier to 

understand than trying to understand 

many different sets of procedures, and 

it is easier to move toward international 

test procedure harmonization if we only 

have one set of test procedures. 

These procedures replace those 

currently published in parts 92 and 94 

and are fundamentally similar to those 

procedures. The primary differences are 

related to tighter tolerances to reduce 

test-to-test variability. In most cases, a 

manufacturer should be able to comply 

with 1065 using its current test 

equipment. Nevertheless, full 

compliance with part 1065 would take 

some effort on the part of 

manufacturers. As such, we are 

proposing some flexibility to make a 

gradual transition from the part 92 and 

94 procedures. For several years, 

manufacturers would be able to 

optionally use the part 1065 procedures. 

Part 1065 procedures would generally 

be required for any new testing by 2016 

(except as noted below). This is very 

similar to the allowance already 

provided with respect to Category 1 and 

Category 2 engines. 

We are also proposing to allow 

Category 3 manufacturers to submit data 

collected using the test equipment and 

procedures specified in the NOX

Technical Code, even after 2016. The 

procedures in 1065 would still be the 

official test procedures, however, and 

manufacturers would be liable with 

respect to any test results from 1065 

testing. Thus, we do not believe this 

allowance would have any effect on the 

stringency of the standards, or how 

manufacturers design and produce their 

engines. 

(b) Test Fuel 

Appropriate test procedures need to 

represent in-use operating conditions as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44478 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

122 74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009. 

123 ‘‘Measurement Method For Particulate Matter 

Emitted From Marine Engines,’’ Submitted by the 

United States to the International Maritime 

Organization Intersessional [sic] Meeting Of the 

BLG Working Group On Air Pollution, 5 October 

2007. 

much as possible, including 

specification of test fuels consistent 

with the fuels that compliant engines 

will use over their lifetimes. Our current 

regulations allow Category 3 engine 

testing using distillate fuel, even though 

many vessels with these engines 

currently use less expensive residual 

fuel. This provision is consistent with 

the specifications of the NOX Technical 

Code. We are proposing to continue this 

approach for Tier 2 and Tier 3. Our 

primary reason for continuing this 

approach is that we expect these 

Category 3 engines will generally be 

required to use distillate fuels in areas 

that will affect U.S. air quality for most 

of their operational lives. (We expect 

this because we expect IMO to approve 

our proposal to amend Annex VI to 

designate the U.S. coastal waters as an 

ECA.) However, since these engines will 

not be required to use low-sulfur or 

ultra low-sulfur fuel, we are also 

proposing to add an explicit 

requirement that a high-sulfur distillate 

test fuel be used for both Tier 2 and Tier 

3 testing. Our testing regulations (40 

CFR 1065.703) are being revised to 

specify that high-sulfur diesel test fuels 

contain 800 to 2500 ppm sulfur. This 

would be lower than the current 

specification of 2000 to 4000 ppm. This 

will allow manufacturers to test with 

fuels near the ultimate in-use limit of 

1000 ppm. We request comment on 

applying this approach to Category 1 

and/or Category 2 engines on Category 

3 vessels. Commenters supporting this 

approach should address how such 

engines could meet the applicable PM 

requirements. For example, should EPA 

allow these engines to show compliance 

using emission credits? Would this 

require us to set a higher Family 

Emission Limit cap for engines using 

this allowance? See also Section VI.C.1 

for further discussion of these engines. 

(c) Testing Catalyst-Equipped Engines 

In our existing programs that require 

compliance with catalyst-based engines 

(such as the Category 1 & 2 engine 

program), we require manufacturers to 

test prototype engines equipped with 

prototype catalyst systems. However, it 

is not clear that this approach would be 

practical for Category 3 engines. These 

are problematic because of their size 

and because they tend to be a least 

partially custom built. Requiring a 

manufacturer to construct a full-scale 

catalyst system for each certification test 

would be extremely expensive. 

We are proposing an optional special 

certification procedure to address this 

concern. The provisions are in 

§ 1042.655 of the proposed regulations. 

The emission-data engine must be tested 

in the specified manner to verify that 

the engine-out emissions comply with 

the Tier 2 standards. The catalyst 

material must be tested under 

conditions that accurately represent 

actual engine conditions for the test 

points. This catalyst testing may be 

performed on a benchscale. 

Manufacturers must include a detailed 

engineering analysis describing how the 

test data collected for the engine and 

catalyst material demonstrate that all 

engines in the family will meet all 

applicable emission standards. 

Manufacturers must verify their design 

by testing a complete production engine 

and catalysts in its final assembled 

configuration. 

(d) Testing Production Engines 

Under the current regulations, 

manufacturers must test a sample of 

their Category 1 and Category 2 engines 

during production. We are now 

proposing similar provisions for 

Category 3 engines. While in the past we 

did not believe that such testing was 

necessary, circumstances have changed 

in two important ways. First, relatively 

inexpensive portable test systems have 

recently become available. This greatly 

reduces the cost of testing an engine in 

a ship. Second, the need to verify that 

production engines actually comply 

with the emission standards increases as 

standards become more stringent and 

emission control technologies become 

more complicated. 

Specifically, we are proposing that 

every new Tier 2 or later Category 3 

engine be tested during the vessel’s sea 

trial to show compliance with the 

applicable NOX standard. Any engine 

that fails to comply with the standard 

would need to be repaired and retested. 

Since we are not proposing PM 

standards for Category 3 engines, and 

because PM measurement is more 

difficult than measuring only gaseous 

emission, we would not require PM 

measurement during testing after 

installation, provided PM emissions 

were measured during certification. 

One concern that manufacturers have 

raised in the past is that it can be 

difficult to achieve the exact test points 

in use. Therefore, we are proposing to 

allow manufacturers flexibility with 

respect to test points when testing 

production engines, consistent with the 

equivalent allowance under the NOX

Technical Code. Where manufacturers 

are unable to duplicate the certification 

test points during production testing, 

we are proposing to allow them to 

comply with an alternate ‘‘at-sea 

standard’’ that is 10 percent higher than 

the otherwise applicable standard. This 

is specified in § 1042.104(g). 

Since we are proposing to require 

testing of every production engine, we 

are also proposing to exclude Category 

3 engines from selective enforcement 

audits under 40 CFR part 1068. 

(e) PM Measurement 

We are proposing to require 

manufacturers to measure PM emissions 

along with NOX, HC, and CO during 

certification testing to report these 

results along with the other test data. 

This is similar to our recently proposed 

requirement for manufacturers to 

measure and report certain greenhouse 

gas emissions for a variety of nonroad 

engine sectors.122 Manufacturers should 

be able to collect these data using standalone partial flow PM measurement 

systems. In recent years, several vendors 

have developed such systems to be 

compliant with the requirements of 

1065. 

It is worth noting that in the past, 

there has been some concern regarding 

the use of older PM measurement 

procedures with high sulfur fuels. The 

primary issue of concern was variability 

of the PM measurement, which was 

strongly influenced by the amount of 

water bound to sulfur. However, we 

believe improvements in PM 

measurement procedures, such as those 

specified in 40 CFR 1065, have 

addressed these issues of measurement 

variability. The U.S. Government 

recently submitted proposed procedures 

for PM measurement to IMO.123

(2) Low Power Operation and Mode 

Caps 

Emission control performance can 

vary with the power at which the engine 

operates. This is potentially important 

because Category 3 engines can operate 

at relatively low power levels when they 

are operating in port areas. Ship pilots 

generally operate engines at reduced 

power for several miles to approach a 

port, with even lower power levels very 

close to shore. The International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

E3 and E2 test cycles, which are used 

for emission testing of propulsion 

marine engines, are heavily weighted 

towards high power. In the absence of 

other requirements, it would be possible 

for manufacturers to meet the cycleweighted average emission standards 

without significantly reducing 

emissions at low-power modes. This 

could be especially problematic for Tier 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44479 

3 engines relying on urea-SCR for NOX

control, since the effectiveness of the 

control is directly affected by the 

amount of urea that is injected and there 

would be an obvious economic 

incentive for manufacturers and 

operators to minimize the amount of 

urea injected. 

We are addressing these concerns in 

two ways. First, we are applying mode 

caps for NOX emissions that will ensure 

that manufacturers design their 

emission controls to be fully effective at 

25 percent power. This would require 

that manufacturers meet the applicable 

NOX standard at each individual test 

point, and not merely as a weighted 

average of the test points. The caps 

would only apply for NOX emissions, 

and manufacturers would not be 

required to meet the HC and CO 

standards at each test point. For HC and 

CO, manufacturers would only be 

required to meet the applicable 

standards as a weighted average of the 

test points 

The other concern is related to power 

levels other than the test points. To 

address this, we will continue to rely on 

our prohibition of defeat devices to 

ensure effective control for lower 

powers. Most significantly, this would 

prohibit manufacturers from turning off 

the urea supply to SCR systems at these 

points, unless the exhaust gas 

temperature was too cool for the SCR 

catalyst to function properly. (Urea at 

these low temperatures does not react 

with NOX molecules and can lead to 

high emissions of ammonia.) 

(3) On-Off Technologies 

One of the features of the SCR 

technologies that are projected to be 

used to meet the Tier 3 NOX standards 

is that they are not integral to the engine 

and the engine can be operated without 

them. They will also require the 

operator to supply the proper reductant. 

Thus, these technologies are potentially 

‘‘on-off’’ technologies. Switching to 

distillate fuel instead of residual fuel to 

reduce SOX and PM emissions can be 

thought of in the same way. 

The increased operating costs of such 

controls associated with urea (or other 

reductants) or with distillate usage 

suggest that it may be reasonable to 

allow these systems to be turned off 

while a ship is operated on the open 

ocean, far away from sensitive areas that 

are affected by ship emissions. This is 

the basis of the MARPOL Annex VI ECA 

approach, with one set of limits that 

would apply when ships are operated in 

sensitive areas and another that would 

apply when ships are operated outside 

those limits. 

We are proposing a new regulatory 

provision in § 1042.115(g) to address the 

use of on-off technologies on Category 3 

engines subject to the Tier 3 standards. 

This provision would require the 

manufacturer to obtain EPA approval to 

design the engines to have on-off 

features. It would also require the 

engine’s onboard computer to record the 

on-off operation (including geographic 

position and time) and require that the 

engine comply fully with the Tier 2 

standards when the Tier 3 controls are 

turned off. We request comment on 

applying this approach to Category 1 

and/or Category 2 engines on Category 

3 vessels. 

At this time, our goal is to require 

manufacturers to comply with the Tier 

3 standards in all areas that will 

ultimately be included in any Emission 

Control Area, which should include all 

areas for which EPA has determined 

that Category 3 engines significantly 

affect U.S. air quality. As discussed in 

Section V.A, we have not yet 

determined the extent to which 

Category 3 engines affect air quality in 

the U.S. territories, areas of Alaska west 

of Kodiak, or the smallest Hawaiian 

islands. Therefore, we are proposing to 

include an interim provision to exclude 

those areas with respect to the Tier 3 

standards at this time. We will revisit 

this should our review of available 

modeling results or other information 

indicate that compliance with the Tier 

3 standards should be required for some 

or all of these areas. 

(4) NOX Monitoring 

We are proposing that Category 3 

engines equipped with on-off controls 

must be equipped to continuously 

monitor NOX concentrations in the 

exhaust. Engine manufacturers would 

be required to include systems to 

automatically alert operators of any 

operation with the emission controls on 

where NOX concentrations indicate 

malfunctioning emission controls. We 

would also require the engine to record 

in nonvolatile computer memory any 

such operation. However, we would not 

require monitoring NOX concentrations 

during operation for which the emission 

controls are allowed to be turned off, 

provided the record indicated that the 

controls were turned off. Where the 

NOX monitor system indicates a 

malfunction, operators would be 

required to investigate the cause and 

make any necessary adjustments or 

repairs. 

We are proposing to define as a 

malfunction of the emission controls 

any condition that would cause an 

engine to fail to comply with the 

applicable NOX standard (See Section 

VI.A.1.d for a discussion of standards 

that would apply for installed engines at 

sea). Such malfunctions could include 

maladjustment of the engine or controls, 

inadequate reductant, or emission 

controls turned off completely. We 

recognize that it is not possible to 

perfectly correlate a measured NOX

concentration with an equivalent cycleweighted emission result. Therefore, the 

proposed requirement would allow 

engine manufacturers to exercise good 

engineering judgment in using 

measured NOX concentrations to 

monitor the emission performance of 

the engine. We request comment on the 

need for less subjective approaches. For 

example, should we establish caps for 

concentrations based on the 

concentrations measured during 

certification? 

(5) Parameter Adjustment 

Given the broad range of ignition 

properties for in-use residual fuels, we 

expect that our current in-use 

adjustment allowance for Category 3 

engines would result in a broad range of 

adjustment. We are therefore 

considering a requirement for operators 

to perform a simple field measurement 

test to confirm emissions after 

parameter adjustments or maintenance 

operations, using onboard emission 

measurement systems with electroniclogging equipment. We expect this issue 

will be equally important for more 

advanced engines that rely on water 

injection or aftertreatment for emission 

reductions. Onboard verification 

systems could add significant assurance 

that engines have properly operating 

emission controls. 

We envision a simpler measurement 

system than the type specified in 

Chapter 6 of the NOX Technical Code. 

As we described in the 2003 final rule, 

we believe that onboard emission 

equipment that is relatively inexpensive 

and easy-to-use could verify that an 

engine is properly adjusted and is 

operating within the engine 

manufacturer’s specifications. Note that 

Annex VI includes specifications 

allowing operators to choose to verify 

emissions through onboard testing, 

which suggests that Annex VI also 

envisioned that onboard measurement 

systems could be of value to operators. 

We request comment on requiring 

onboard verification systems on ships 

with Category 3 marine engines and on 

a description of such a system. In 

particular, we request comment on 

whether the continuous NOX

monitoring system described in the 

previous subsection would be sufficient 

to address these concerns. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44480 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

124See 68 FR 9746, February 28, 2003, at 9774– 

5 for a discussion of these differences as they relate 

to Category 3 marine diesel engines. 

(6) In-Use Liability 

Under the existing Tier 1 program for 

Category 3 engines, owners and 

operators are required to maintain, 

adjust, and operate the engines in such 

a way as to ensure proper function of 

the emission controls. These 

requirements, which are described in 40 

CFR 94.1004, are being continued in the 

regulations in part 1042 (See § 1042.660 

of the proposed regulations for these 

requirements). Specifically, these 

provisions require that all maintenance, 

repair, adjustment, and alteration of the 

engine be performed using good 

engineering judgment so that the engine 

continues to meet the emission 

standards. Each two-hour period of 

operation of an engine in a condition 

not complying with this requirement 

would be considered a separate 

violation. Owners will also continue to 

be required to keep certain records 

onboard the vessel and report annually 

to EPA whether or not the vessel has 

complied with these and other 

requirements. 

(7) Replacement Engines 

The existing provisions of § 1042.615 

provide an exemption that allows 

manufacturers to produce new 

uncertified engines when they are 

needed to replace equivalent existing 

engines that fail prematurely. For many 

engine sectors, this practice is common, 

but represents a very small faction of a 

manufacturer’s total engine production. 

However, since we do not believe this 

practice is either common or necessary 

for Category 3 engines, we are proposing 

to not allow this exemption for Category 

3 engines. 

B. Compliance Provisions To Implement 

Annex VI NOX Regulation and the NOX

Technical Code 

In addition to the Clean Air Act 

provisions being proposed in this 

action, we are also proposing new 

regulations to implement certain 

provisions of the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships. These regulations 

are proposed as a new part 1043 of title 

40. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships establishes a general requirement 

for vessels operating in the exclusive 

economic zone and navigable waters of 

the United States to comply with 

MARPOL Annex VI. It also gives EPA 

and the Administrator the authority to 

further implement MARPOL Annex VI. 

Many of the requirements relating to 

NOX emissions and fuel sulfur limits 

can be implemented without the need 

for further elaboration in that the 

Annex, along with the NOX Technical 

Code, provides instructions on how to 

demonstrate compliance with those 

requirements. However, APPS 

authorizes the Administrator to 

prescribe any necessary or desired 

additional regulations to assist in 

carrying out the provisions of 

Regulations 12 through 19 of Annex VI 

(see 33 USC 1903(c)(2)). Specifically, 

the regulations being proposed in this 

NPRM in part 1043 of title 40 are 

intended to assist in the implementation 

of the engine and fuel requirements 

contained in Regulation 13, 14, and 18 

of MARPOL Annex VI.. They address 

such issues as how to obtain an Engine 

International Air Pollution Prevention 

(EIAPP) certificate (which is equivalent 

in many ways to a Clean Air Act 

certificate of conformity), exemptions 

for vessels used exclusively in domestic 

service, and requirements for vessels not 

registered by a country that is a Party to 

Annex VI. 

In contrast to the compliance program 

for Category 3 engines described in 

Section VI.A, the 1043 regulations 

described in this section would apply to 

all marine diesel engines above 130 kW. 

Similarly, the MARPOL Annex VI fuel 

requirements apply to all fuel oil used 

onboard a vessel, defined as any fuel 

delivered to and intended for 

combustion purpose for propulsion or 

operation on board a ship, including 

distillate and residual fuels. 

(1) EIAPP Certificates 

In general, an engine can be dualcertified under EPA’s Clean Air Act 

marine diesel engine program and the 

MARPOL Annex VI/APPS program. 

However, we propose to require that 

engine manufacturers submit separate 

applications for the 1042 and EIAPP 

certificates. The proposed regulations in 

part 1043 specify the process that would 

apply. The process for obtaining the 

EIAPP is very similar to the process for 

obtaining a certificate of conformity 

under part 1042, and although there are 

differences between the programs, 

manufacturers should be able to comply 

with both programs with very little 

additional work. The primary 

differences are that, to certify to the 

MARPOL Annex VI standards, the 

manufacturer must include a copy of the 

Technical File and onboard NOX

verification procedures (as specified in 

Section 2.4 of the NOX Technical Code) 

and is not required to provide 

information about useful life, emission 

labels, deterioration factors, or PM 

emissions.124 Currently engine 

manufacturers will be able to apply for 

both certifications using the certification 

templates and test data. 

Consistent with our 1042 program, 

our proposed 1043 program would 

require that each engine installed or 

intended to be installed on a U.S.- 

flagged vessel have an EIAPP before it 

is introduced into U.S. commerce. The 

proposed regulations would create a 

presumption that all marine engines 

manufactured, sold, or distributed in 

U.S. commerce would be considered to 

be intended to be installed on a U.S.- 

flagged vessel, although this 

presumption could be rebutted by clear 

and convincing evidence to the contrary 

(evidence that the engine is intended for 

export, for example). 

(2) Approved Methods 

The 2008 amendments to MARPOL 

Annex VI added a new provision to the 

engine standards in Regulation 13 that 

extends the Tier I NOX limits to certain 

engines installed on ships constructed 

on or after January 1, 1990 through 

December 31, 1999. Specifically, 

engines with power output greater than 

5,000 kW and with per cylinder 

displacement at or above 90 liters 

installed on such ships would be 

required to meet the Tier I NOX limits 

if a certified Approved Method is 

available. An Approved Method may be 

certified by the Administration of any 

flag state, but once one is registered 

with the IMO the owner of such an 

engine must either install the Approved 

Method or demonstrate compliance 

with the Annex VI Tier I limits through 

some other method. We are proposing to 

include a regulatory section codifying 

this requirement. These regulations are 

contained in § 1043.50. 

(3) Other Annex VI Compliance 

Requirements 

Engine manufacturers, vessel 

manufacturers, vessel owners, and fuel 

providers, fuel distributors, and other 

directly regulated stakeholders are 

required to comply with all aspects of 

Regulations 13, 14, and 18 of Annex VI 

as well as the NOX Technical Code. 

These include requirements for engine 

operation, fuel use, fuel oil quality, and 

various recordkeeping requirements 

(e.g., record book of engine parameters, 

engine technical file, fuel switching 

procedures, bunker delivery notes and 

associated fuel samples, and fuel 

sampling procedures). While 

certification, compliance, and 

verification procedures are set out in the 

Annex and related documents, we 

nonetheless seek comment on whether 

additional regulatory provision under 

APPS would be necessary or helpful. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44481 

For example, the contents of a bunker 

delivery note are set out in Appendix V 

to MARPOL Annex VI and § 1043.80. 

Are there aspects of these criteria that 

should be further clarified, or are there 

parameters required in Regulation 18 

that should also be included on the 

bunker delivery note? Similarly, the 

process for verifying the sulfur content 

of fuel oil samples is set out in 

Appendix VI to the amended Annex VI. 

Is there any aspect of this procedure that 

requires further clarification? 

Commenters supporting the inclusion of 

additional language related to these or 

other requirements are encouraged to 

include specific recommendations. 

(4) Non-Party Vessels 

The proposed regulations specify that 

vessels flagged by a country that is not 

a party to MARPOL (known as nonParty vessels) must comply with 

Regulations 13, 14, and 18 of Annex VI 

when operating in U.S. waters. This 

requirement would fulfill the 

requirement of 33 U.S.C. 1902(e), which 

requires the adoption of regulations for 

non-Party vessels such that they are not 

treated more favorably than vessels of 

countries that are party to the MARPOL 

Protocol. However, since such vessels 

cannot get EIAPP certificates, this 

proposed provision requires non-party 

vessels to obtain equivalent 

documentation of compliance with the 

NOX standards of Annex VI. We request 

comment on this provision. 

(5) Internal Waters 

APPS applies Annex VI requirements, 

including amendments to Annex VI 

(such as ECA designations) that are 

binding on the United States, to all 

persons in navigable waters of the U.S., 

including internal waters. However, our 

recent proposal for ECA designation that 

was submitted to IMO, although 

intended to protect air quality in U.S. 

ports and internal areas, does not 

explicitly state that it applies to internal 

waters. Therefore, we are proposing 

regulatory text under the authority of 

APPS, in order to avoid confusion on 

whether vessels must meet ECA 

requirements in internal waters. The 

text clarifies that the ECA requirements 

generally apply to internal waters, such 

as the Mississippi River and the Great 

Lakes, that can be accessed by oceangoing vessels. Vessel emissions in these 

waters affect U.S. air quality to an equal, 

if not greater extent that emissions 

taking place in coastal waters. 

Specifically, the proposed rule would 

require compliance with the fuel sulfur 

requirements and the NOX emission 

standards of Regulations 13, 14, and 18 

in internal waters. However, the ECA 

requirements do not apply in internal 

waters, such as those in northwestern 

Alaska, that are not shoreward of an 

ECA designated under Annex VI; rather 

the non-ECA requirements of Annex VI 

apply for these waters. 

(6) Exemptions and Exclusions 

Under MARPOL Annex VI and APPS, 

certain vessels are excluded from some 

or all of the requirements. Consistent 

with Annex VI and APPS, the 

regulations in 1043 would exclude 

public vessels and engines intended to 

be used solely for emergencies. For the 

purpose of this provision, the term 

‘‘public vessels’’ includes all warships 

and naval auxiliary vessels, as well as 

any other vessels owned or operated by 

a sovereign country engaged in 

noncommercial service. Consistent with 

the provisions in APPS, we are not 

proposing to apply the Annex VI 

requirements to U.S.-flagged public 

vessels. It should be noted, however, 

that not all public vessels are exempt 

from our Clean Air Act engine and fuel 

requirements. Only public vessels 

covered by a national security 

exemption under § 94.908 or § 1042.635 

are exempt from the Clean Air Act 

program. 

The category of emergency engines 

includes engines that power equipment 

such as pumps that are intended to be 

used solely for emergencies and engines 

installed in lifeboats intended to be 

used solely in emergencies. It should be 

noted that the emergency engine 

provisions in the Annex and part 1043 

are similar but not identical to the 

emergency engine provisions in our 

Clean Air Act program or the process of 

obtaining our CAA exemptions. In 

particular, the emergency engine 

exemption from the CAA requirements 

applies only with respect to the catalystbased Tier 4 standards. 

We are exempting from the MARPOL 

Annex VI NOX standards engines 

installed on vessels registered or flagged 

in the United States provided the vessel 

remains within the EEZ of the United 

States. These engines would still be 

required to meet stringent emission 

standards since they are covered by our 

Clean Air Act program. In addition, the 

fuels used by these vessels are also 

covered by our Clean Air Act program, 

which has more stringent fuel 

requirements than Annex VI. Therefore, 

we are also proposing that as long as the 

operators of these domestic vessels 

comply with these more stringent Clean 

Air Act fuel requirements, they will be 

deemed to be in compliance with the 

Annex VI requirements. The 

combination of these proposed 

provisions would mean that a fishing 

vessel that operates out of a U.S. port 

and that never leaves U.S. waters would 

not be required to have an EIAPP for all 

engines above 130 kW, a record book of 

engine parameters and a technical file 

for each engines, and vessels over 400 

gross tons would not be required to 

maintain bunker delivery notes (vessels 

under 400 gross tons are not required by 

Regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex VI to 

have bunker delivery notes). Instead, the 

engines on that vessel would be 

required to be in compliance with our 

marine diesel engine standards and be 

required to comply with manufacture 

requirements with regard to the fueling 

of those engines. We are also proposing 

to explicitly preclude these engines 

from being certified to use residual fuel 

if they are exempt from the part 1043 

requirements. Thus, these engines 

would be required to always use cleaner 

fuels than are required by Annex VI. 

U.S. vessels that operate or may operate 

in waters that are under the jurisdiction 

of another country are not exempt from 

these provisions, and the owner of any 

such vessel may be required by that 

country to show compliance with 

Annex VI. Therefore, the owner should 

be sure to maintain the appropriate 

paperwork for that engine and have the 

appropriate engine certification. It 

should be noted that engines that must 

show compliance with the Annex VI 

standards are not exempt from EPA’s 

standards for Category 1 or Category 2 

engines. We are requesting comment on 

this overall approach for domestic 

vessels. In particular, we are requesting 

comment on whether we should extend 

this exemption to U.S. vessels that 

sometimes leave the EEZ of the United 

States, but that never enter waters under 

the jurisdiction of another country. 

Finally, spark-ignition, nonreciprocating engines, and engines that 

do not use liquid fuel are not included 

in Regulation 13 of the Annex VI 

program and therefore we are not 

proposing that they be covered by the 

proposed APPS regulations with respect 

to NOX emissions. However, the 

MARPOL Annex VI fuel requirements 

do apply for these vessels. These 

engines are generally subject to separate 

Clean Air Act requirements and 

therefore will generally be in 

compliance with the fuel sulfur limits. 

C. Changes to the Requirements Specific 

to Engines Below 30 Liters per Cylinder 

The amendments to MARPOL Annex 

VI were adopted in October of 2008, 

after we finalized our Clean Air Act Tier 

3 and Tier 4 standards for Category 1 

and Category 2 engines (May 6, 2008, 73 

FR 25097). While these two programs 

are very similar, there are a few 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44482 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

125We continue to believe it is not appropriate to 

adopt SCR-forcing Tier 4 standards for engines 

below 600 kW in our national program, for the 

reasons described in our 2008 Final Rule (May 6, 

2008, 73 FR 25097) . Specifically, there are 

significant challenges regarding the ability of 

manufacturers of the small vessels that use these 

engines for propulsion to incorporate SCR systems 

into their vessel designs. These concerns are not as 

significant for auxiliary engines used on OGV. 

differences between them with regard to 

their engine requirements. We continue 

to believe that our Tier 3 and Tier 4 

standards will yield the greatest degree 

of emission reduction that is 

technologically feasible, taking into 

account costs, safety, and other factors 

for those engines. However, we are 

considering changes to our CAA 

program to facilitate compliance with 

both programs. We seek comment on 

these potential changes, described 

below. 

In addition, some of the provisions 

described in Section VI.D may also 

apply to Category 1 and Category 2 

marine diesel engines, regarding nondiesel engines and technical 

amendments to our current program. 

(1) MARPOL Annex VI and EPA’s 

Standards for Category 1 and Category 2 

Engines 

As discussed throughout this notice, 

we are proposing to adopt the new 

Annex VI NOX limits under our CAA 

program for Category 3 engines. 

Specifically, we are proposing to adopt 

the Tier II and Tier III standards as our 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for engines 

above 30 liters per cylinder. The new 

Annex VI NOX limits are shown in 

Table III–1 in Section III.B.1 above. 

With regard to Category 1 and 

Category 2 marine diesel engines, the 

Annex VI standards are different from 

our Clean Air Act program in several 

ways. First, with regard to the NOX

limits, EPA’s Tier 2 NOX limits, which 

are similar in stringency to the Annex 

VI Tier II limits, have been in effect 

since 2004–2007, depending on engine 

size. EPA has intermediary Tier 3 NOX

limits, which begin in 2012–2014, 

depending on engine size, and are more 

stringent than the Annex VI Tier II 

standards that apply beginning in 2011. 

Also, while EPA’s Tier 4 NOX limits for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines are 

similar in stringency to the Annex VI 

Tier III NOX limit, they apply only to 

engines above 600 kW.125

Second, in addition to NOX, EPA’s 

marine diesel engine program includes 

limits for PM, HC, and CO emissions. 

Annex VI, in contrast, addresses marine 

diesel PM emissions through fuel 

standards (see Section III.B.2 above for 

an explanation for why this is 

appropriate for Category 3 engines). 

EPA’s Tier 4 PM standards for Category 

1 and Category 2 engines are expected 

to be met through PM aftertreatment 

technology, which will require the use 

of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Owners 

of vessels that operate internationally, 

including ocean-going vessels, were 

concerned with the availability of this 

ultra-low sulfur fuel, i.e., 15 ppm sulfur 

fuel, outside of the United States. In 

response to concerns with fuel 

availability, we created a provision that 

would exempt Category 1 and Category 

2 engines installed on certain OGV from 

the Tier 4 standards. This permanent 

exemption from the Tier 4 standards is 

available to owners that can 

demonstrate their vessel will operate 

primarily outside the United States, as 

evidenced by obtaining and maintaining 

certification for the International 

Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

(SOLAS) for the vessel. The exempted 

engines are required to meet EPA’s Tier 

3 standards, which consist of interim 

NOX and PM standards. Note that we 

indicated we do not expect to issue any 

permanent exemptions until 2021; prior 

to that time, it is our expectation that 

fleets would use their existing pre-Tier 

4 vessels for operations where ULSD 

may not be available. 

Third, and finally, EPA’s marine 

diesel engine compliance requirements 

are slightly different from the MARPOL 

Annex VI program, regarding engine 

durability, test fuels (in EPA’s program, 

an engine must be certified on the fuel 

type it will use in operation; see 40 CFR 

1042.104 and 501), and some testing 

parameters. However, the programs are 

sufficiently consistent that engine 

manufacturers can use a single 

harmonized compliance strategy to 

certify under both systems. 

(2) Tier 4 Compliance Option for 

Category 1 and 2 Engines on U.S. 

Vessels That Operate Internationally 

Engines on U.S. vessels that comply 

with EPA’s Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards 

will be in compliance with the Annex 

VI Tier I and Tier II NOX limits, since 

EPA’s limits are similar in stringency or 

are slightly more stringent. 

Beginning in 2016, however, some 

engines in U.S. vessels that operate 

internationally could be out of 

compliance with the MARPOL NOX

limits, even though they comply with 

EPA’s CAA program. This would occur 

in two situations. If an owner obtained 

a permanent exemption from the EPA’s 

Tier 4 standards for engines above 600 

kW, as described above, those engines 

would not meet the Annex VI Tier III 

NOX limits. If the vessel has engines 

below 600 kW, which are only subject 

to EPA’s Tier 3 standards for NOX and 

PM, then those engines would also not 

meet the Annex VI Tier III NOX limits. 

If a vessel is found to be in noncompliance with Annex VI, it can be 

detained in a foreign port until the 

deficiency is corrected. 

Therefore, as a result of the new 

situation brought about by the Annex VI 

amendments, we are considering 

revising our program for Category 1 and 

2 engines. To avoid U.S. vessels being 

found in non-compliance with the 

Annex VI NOX limits in foreign ports, 

we are considering rescinding the 

permanent exemption for EPA’s Tier 4 

standards for Category 1 and 2 engines 

and, instead, adopting a compliance 

flexibility that would give owners the 

choice between complying with EPA’s 

Tier 4 NOX and PM standards or the 

MARPOL Annex VI Tier III NOX

standards for all engines installed on a 

vessel. This flexibility would ensure 

that owners of OGV that will operate in 

any ECA are in compliance with 

MARPOL Annex VI, while allowing 

owners of vessels that never operate in 

waters under the jurisdiction of another 

country to comply with the U.S. 

program instead. 

This compliance option would be 

available beginning in 2016. The 

flexibility would be limited to vessels 

that are operated primarily outside of 

the United States, as evidenced by the 

vessel obtaining and maintaining 

SOLAS certification and appropriate 

EIAPP certification demonstrating 

compliance with Annex VI. U.S. vessels 

that are Jones Act vessels and/or that are 

used primarily between U.S. ports 

would not be eligible for this 

compliance flexibility given they do not 

have the concerns causing the need for 

an exemption from our CAA Tier 4 

standards (i.e., availability of 15 ppm 

sulfur fuel). The exercise of the 

compliance flexibility would take the 

form of a formal election to comply with 

the Annex VI Tier III NOX limits in lieu 

of EPA’s Tier 4 marine diesel engine 

emission limits. This formal election 

would be deposited with EPA and 

would be necessary so the engine 

manufacturer can provide an Annex VIcompliant engine to the vessel builder 

in lieu of a CAA Tier 4 engine. 

This compliance option could yield 

additional NOX emission benefits to 

U.S. air quality over the current 

permanent exemption approach. Under 

the current program, exempted engines 

would meet only the Tier 3 standards. 

For engines up to 3,300 kW, this is 

about a 20 percent reduction from Tier 

1 (for larger engines, the Tier 3 NOX

limit is the same as the Tier 2 limit 

because the Tier 4 standards begin 

earlier, in 2014). Under the revised 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44483 

approach, all vessels would need to 

meet aftertreatment-forcing NOX limits 

when operating in ECAs. The choice of 

either the EPA Tier 4 limits or the 

Annex VI Tier III limits is expected to 

yield similar NOX benefits. While the 

Annex VI Tier III NOX limits are slightly 

less stringent (an 80 percent reduction 

from Tier 1 compared to an 85 percent 

reduction from EPA’s Tier 4 standard), 

the Annex VI program covers more 

engines (those 130–600 kW). Applying 

either of these programs could represent 

a significant NOX reduction over the 

Tier 3 limits that would otherwise 

apply. 

The main difference between the two 

programs is that the Annex VI program 

does not include PM standards. This 

means that instead of meeting EPA’s 

Tier 3 PM standards (which are about a 

45 percent reduction from the Tier 2 PM 

limit), the engines that exercise the 

Annex VI Tier III option would be 

unconstrained for PM. However, this 

will be offset by the greater reductions 

in NOX (and associated indirect PM) 

emissions that would be achieved 

through the application of SCR-forcing 

standards to all engines above 130 kW 

installed on the vessel. 

Owners of qualified vessels that 

operate in ECAs would be expected to 

choose the Annex VI Tier III option to 

ensure that their engines below 600 kW 

are in compliance in those areas. 

Owners of vessels that never operate in 

any ECA, including the North American 

ECA, may also choose that option if they 

are concerned with availability of ultralow sulfur diesel fuel that would be 

required for EPA’s Tier 4 PM controls. 

Annex VI Tier III engines that are 

used in this program would be required 

to be certified by EPA, although we 

would accept test data obtained for 

compliance with the IMO program for 

this program. 

We are also seeking comment on 

whether we should consider such a 

compliance option to replace our 

temporary exemption program for 

Category 1 and 2 engines. The 

temporary exemption was designed to 

address the case in which a U.S. vessel 

is contracted to operate overseas for an 

extended period of time in an area in 

which 15 ppm fuel is not available. 

Owners of vessels that obtain this 

exemption can disable the Tier 4 

controls on Category 1 and Category 2 

engines. The exemption is temporary in 

that the controls must be re-enabled 

before the vessel is returned to service 

in the United States. It should be noted 

that while the compliance flexibility 

described above would ensure that the 

vessel achieves the Annex VI Tier III 

standards while operating in another 

country, it also means that the vessel 

would not achieve EPA’s Tier 4 PM 

requirements when it is returned to 

service in the United States. 

(3) On/Off Technology for Category 1 

and 2 Engines 

As described in Section VI.A.3 above, 

we are proposing to allow the use of 

auxiliary emission control devices 

(AECDs) that would allow modulation 

of emission control equipment on 

Category 3 engines outside of specific 

geographic areas. These AECDs would 

be subject to certain restrictions: (1) The 

AECD would be available for the Tier 3 

standards only; (2) the AECD would 

modulate emission controls only while 

operating in areas where emissions 

could reasonably be expected to not 

adversely affect U.S. air quality; and (3) 

and an engine equipped with an AECD 

must also be equipped with a NOX

emission monitoring device. 

Ocean-going vessels with Category 3 

propulsion engines have several smaller 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines to 

provide auxiliary power. In addition, 

while most U.S. vessels with Category 1 

or Category 2 propulsion engines 

operate primarily or exclusively on our 

inland waterways, in our commercial 

ports, or in areas close to our coastlines, 

there are Category 1 and 2 vessels that 

operate more like ocean-going vessels. 

Our current program for Category 1 

and Category 2 engines does not allow 

the use of AECDs on these engines. 

Instead, it requires the NOX and PM 

aftertreatment devices on these engines 

to be functional at all times unless the 

owner of the vessel has obtained from 

EPA either a temporary or permanent 

exemption from the Tier 4 standards. 

Most U.S. vessels with Category 1 or 

Category 2 propulsion engines do not 

operate outside of our inland and 

coastal water systems, and therefore 

would not benefit from a provision that 

would allow AECDs. Additionally, we 

are concerned that use of this 

technology/strategy could have 

detrimental air quality impacts if 

operated inappropriately in or around 

U.S. waters. However, we are seeking 

comment as to whether we should 

consider allowing such an AECD 

provision to apply to other categories of 

marine diesel engines. 

First, we seek comment on whether 

the application of this provision should 

be limited to Category 1 and Category 2 

engines used as auxiliary engines on 

ocean-going vessels with Category 3 

propulsion engines, to Category 1 and 

Category 2 engines installed on vessels 

that operate primarily outside the 

United States, or to some other group of 

vessels. 

Second, if we allowed AECDs on 

engine categories with a PM emission 

standard, we seek comment on whether 

they should be limited to NOX

emissions only. 

Third, we request comment on the 

NOX (and potentially PM) levels that 

would need to be achieved while then 

AECD is in operation: the Annex VI Tier 

II NOX limits or EPA’s Tier 3 NOX and 

PM limits. 

Finally, we seek comment on whether 

an AECD provision should be used 

instead of the temporary exemption 

program for Category 1 and 2 engines. 

In this case, instead of extending the 

compliance flexibility to these vessels as 

described in Section VI.C.1, owners of a 

vessel that is contracted to operate 

outside the United States for an 

extended period of time could purchase 

and use engines equipped with on/off 

features, provided the emission control 

devices were operational when the 

vessel is operating in areas that affect 

U.S. air quality. We seek comment on 

whether the AECD approach is more 

useful for these vessels or the 

compliance flexibility described above. 

D. Other Proposed Regulatory Issues 

In addition to the changes described 

in Sections VI.A and VI.C, we are also 

proposing changes that would apply to 

Category 1 marine engines in general, 

and/or to other types of engines. 

(1) Non-Diesel Engines 

Most of the preceding discussions 

have focused on conventional diesel 

engines using either diesel fuel or 

residual fuels. It is important to 

highlight two other types of engines 

being affected by this proposal: engines 

using other fuels and gas turbine 

engines. 

(a) Engines Not Using Diesel Fuel 

For all categories of marine engines, 

our existing standards apply to all 

engines meeting the definition of 

compression-ignition, regardless of the 

fuel type. For example, compressionignition Category 3 engines that burn 

natural gas are currently subject to our 

Tier 1 standards and would be subject 

to our proposed Tier 2 and Tier 3 

standards. We are proposing to continue 

to apply this approach for all marine 

engines subject to our standards. 

The testing regulations in part 1065 

include test fuel specifications for diesel 

fuel, residual fuel, and natural gas (as 

well as for gasoline and liquefied 

petroleum gas, which would not 

typically be used in a compressionignition engine). To certify an engine for 

a different fuel type, a manufacturer 

would need to obtain EPA approval to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44484 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

126See ‘‘Proposed Technical Amendments to EPA 

Regulations,’’ EPA memorandum from Alan Stout, 

in the docket for this proposed rule, Docket No.: 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

use an alternate fuel which it 

recommends for testing. All other 

aspects of certification would be the 

same. 

(b) Gas Turbine Engines 

Gas turbine engines are internal 

combustion engines that can operate 

using a variety of fuels (such as diesel 

fuel or natural gas) but do not operate 

on a compression-ignition or other 

reciprocating engine cycle. Power is 

extracted from the combustion gas using 

a rotating turbine rather than 

reciprocating pistons. The primary type 

of U.S.-flagged vessels that use gas 

turbine engines are naval combat ships. 

While a small number have been used 

in commercial ships, we are not aware 

of any current sales for commercial 

applications. They can range in size 

from those equivalent in power to midsize Category 1 engines to those that 

produce the same power as Category 3 

engines. None of these engines are 

currently subject to our standards 

because they do not meet the definition 

of compression-ignition engines in our 

existing regulations. 

To date, this omission has not been a 

concern because only a small number of 

turbine-powered vessels have been 

produced and nearly all of them would 

have been eligible for a national security 

exemption. However, we are concerned 

that this exclusion may become a 

loophole in the future for operators 

hoping to avoid using engines with 

advanced catalytic emission controls. 

To a lesser degree, we also have 

concerns about the possibility of other 

non-reciprocating engines being 

excluded. We are proposing to close this 

potential loophole by revising the 

regulations to treat new gas turbine 

engines (as well as other nonreciprocating engines) as compressionignition engines and applying our 

standards for new Category 1 and 

Category 2 engines (including NOX, HC, 

CO, and PM standards) to gas turbine 

engines. 

To incorporate this approach in our 

marine emission control program, we 

are proposing a change to our 

definitions of Category 1 and Category 2 

to include gas turbine engines. Since 

turbine engines have no cylinders, we 

need to address how to apply any 

regulatory provisions that depend on a 

specified value for per-cylinder 

displacement. A reasonable approach 

would be to apply the standards based 

on equivalent power ratings, to the 

extent possible. Specifically, we are 

proposing to redefine ‘‘Category 1’’ to 

include gas turbines with rated power 

up to 2250 kW and to redefine 

‘‘Category 2’’ to include all gas turbines 

with higher power ratings. This would 

mean we would not consider any gas 

turbines as ‘‘Category 3’’ engines. The 

largest gas turbine engines would be 

considered to be Category 2 engines, 

even those that had rated power more 

typical of Category 3 diesel engines. 

We are aware that some companies 

are manufacturing new highperformance recreational vessels using 

gas turbine engines. In at least some 

cases, the engines are modified from 

surplus military aircraft engines. We 

have not yet determined whether such 

recreational engines should be held to 

the same standards as conventional 

diesel engines. It is also important to 

note that under our current regulations, 

diesel engines meeting the definition of 

‘‘recreational marine engine’’ in 

§ 1042.901 are not subject to catalyst 

forcing standards. This approach was 

applied because of factors such as the 

usage patterns for recreational diesel 

engines. We would expect these same 

factors to apply for recreational gas 

turbine engines. Thus, we are not as 

concerned about a potential gas turbine 

loophole for recreational engines as for 

commercial engines. We also do not 

have enough information at this time to 

know how feasible it would be for gas 

turbine engine manufacturers to comply 

with the standards for recreational 

diesel engines, or to accurately assess 

the environmental impact of these 

vessels. Nevertheless, it is clear that the 

environmental impact of such small 

numbers of these engines cannot be 

large. Thus, at this time, we are not 

proposing to apply this regulatory 

change to recreational gas turbine 

engines (i.e., that is gas turbine engines 

installed on recreational vessels). 

Nevertheless, we will continue to 

investigate these engines and may 

subject them to standards in the near 

future. 

Our diesel engine program contains a 

national security exemption that 

automatically exempt vessels ‘‘used or 

owned by an agency of the Federal 

government responsible for national 

defense, where the vessel has armor, 

permanently attached weaponry, 

specialized electronic warfare systems, 

unique stealth performance 

requirements, and/or unique combat 

maneuverability requirements.’’ Since it 

is not our intent to prohibit naval 

vessels from using turbine engines, we 

are proposing to revise this provision to 

automatically exempt military vessels 

owned by an agency of the Federal 

government responsible for national 

defense powered by gas turbine engines. 

We are confident that gas turbine 

engines could use the same type of 

aftertreatment as is projected for diesel 

engines. The basic reactions through 

which SCR reduces NOX emissions can 

occur under a wide range of conditions, 

and exhaust from gas turbine engines is 

fundamentally similar to exhaust from 

diesel engines. Moreover, since gas 

turbines operate at lower air/fuel ratios 

and have lower exhaust volumes, they 

can actually use smaller less expensive 

catalysts than diesel engines of the same 

rated power. Viewed another way, 

however, this requirement can be 

considered to be feasible based on the 

fact that the only circumstance in which 

a vessel would actually need a gas 

turbine engine would be for military 

purposes where our national security 

exemption provisions would apply. For 

all other vessels, it is entirely feasible 

for the vessel to be powered by a diesel 

engine. In fact, that is what is being 

done today. 

This program for gas turbine engines 

would apply to freshly manufactured 

engines only. We are not proposing to 

apply our marine remanufacture 

program to gas turbine engines. Because 

there are so few engines in the fleet, it 

is not possible to know what common 

rebuilding process are or whether and 

how those practices would return an 

existing engine to as-new condition. We 

may review this approach in the future 

if there is an increase in the number of 

gas turbines in the fleet. 

(2) Technical Amendments 

The proposed regulations include 

technical amendments to our motor 

vehicle and nonroad engine regulations. 

These changes are generally corrections 

and clarifications. A large number of 

these changes are the removal of 

obsolete highway engine text that 

applied only for past model years. Many 

others are changes to the text of part 

1042 to make it more consistent with 

the language of our other recently 

corrected nonroad parts. The last large 

category of changes includes those 

related to the test procedures in part 

1065. See the memorandum in the 

docket entitled ‘‘Technical 

Amendments to EPA Regulations’’ for a 

full description of these changes.126

(3) Locomotives Operating Outside of 

the United States 

Locomotive manufacturers have 

raised an issue similar to the issue of 

on-off technologies discussed in Section 

VI.A.3. They have objected in the past 

to EPA’s refusal to certify engine 

designs that increase NOX emissions 

when the locomotive is operating in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44485 

127For example, EPA received a request for 

guidance from Volvo on April 13, 2009 seeking 

clarification on the transition to the 2010 model 

year standards for both vehicle and engine 

manufacturers. Docket No.: EPA–HQ–OAR–2007– 

0121. 

Mexico, even though the engine design 

would reverse the adjustment to allow 

the locomotive to conform to NOX

emissions standards when it returns to 

the United States. Engine manufacturers 

have wanted to use such engine designs 

to improve fuel consumption by 

readjusting injection timing while the 

locomotive is operating in Mexico. 

In our recent locomotive rulemaking, 

we responded to these manufacturer 

concerns by noting that we have 

‘‘prohibited such AECDs because of 

concerns over their potential adverse 

impacts on U.S. air quality,’’ 

recognizing that ‘‘emissions that occur 

outside the territorial boundaries of the 

U.S. can impact air quality within the 

U.S.’’ Since we also committed to 

reconsider the issue more broadly in 

this current rulemaking, we are 

requesting comment on whether we 

should allow manufacturers to certify 

such engine designs. 

In particular, we are requesting 

comment on what conditions we should 

set if we allow such designs. For 

example, should we approve the design 

only if it was calibrated to remain in the 

low-NOX mode until it was at least 200 

miles away from the U.S. border? 

Should we allow such designs if they 

would conflict with Mexican law? 

Should we also consider operation in 

Canada or Central American countries? 

Commenters should also address the 

degree to which such designs would be 

tamper-proof and whether special 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

should be included. Finally, 

commenters should also address how 

EPA should respond if such a 

locomotive was found to be operating in 

the U.S. in the high-NOX configuration 

and such high-NOX operation was not 

caused by tampering. Should it be 

treated merely as a defect that must be 

reported, or should it be treated as 

different violation, e.g., introduction 

into commerce of an engine not in 

substantial conformance to its 

certificate? 

(4) Stockpiling of Model Year 2009 

Highway Engines 

EPA is also proposing to add language 

in part 85, applicable to heavy-duty 

motor vehicles and heavy-duty engines 

used in motor vehicles, which codifies 

that the ‘‘stockpiling’’ of engines to 

avoid compliance with later, more 

stringent emission standards is 

considered a circumvention of the Clean 

Air Act and is prohibited. The proposed 

provisions are consistent with existing 

stockpiling provisions for nonroad 

engines and equipment in part 1068 and 

are intended to codify the prohibition 

for heavy-duty motor vehicles and 

heavy-duty engines. Stockpiling of 

engines is the practice of keeping in 

inventory more engines than a 

manufacturer normally keeps in 

inventory, in particular when those 

engines do not meet the more stringent 

standards. EPA believes this prohibition 

is necessary to ensure that engine and 

vehicle manufacturers comply with the 

same compliance ‘‘clock’’ while 

allowing for minimum but necessary 

flexibility during the transition of model 

years. We recognize there will be the 

need for some market transition when 

standards change but believe this 

regulatory clarification will help 

provide guidance to the vehicle and 

engine manufacturers. 

EPA is proposing to add this language 

to clarify EPA’s longstanding policy that 

considers stockpiling to be a 

circumvention of the Act, including the 

terms of section 203(a)(1). During and 

after the transition to the 2007 heavyduty diesel emission standards EPA met 

with several manufacturers to 

understand their production plans and 

their concerns regarding all 

manufacturers’ timely compliance with 

the new emission standards. EPA has 

begun to have similar discussions with 

and inquiries from manufacturers for 

the transition to the 2010 model year.127

The Agency has also been conducting 

some analysis of market practices. Given 

this experience EPA believes it 

appropriate to clearly set forth the 

stockpiling prohibition. 

Therefore, for example, an engine 

manufacturer who sells engines to a 

vehicle manufacturer cannot sell 

engines in a current model year for the 

purpose of having them installed in a 

future model year’s vehicles when the 

engine sale is beyond that required to 

meet normal production lead time 

requirements. Likewise, a vehicle 

manufacturer cannot order or install 

engines from a prior model year when 

the number of such engines exceeds that 

needed to meet normal inventory 

requirements. This will prevent vehicle 

manufacturers from avoiding 

compliance with emission requirements 

which would otherwise apply during 

the model year of the vehicle. Other 

indicators that illegal stockpiling may 

have occurred include build up of 

excessive inventory or volume of 

engines prior to a future model year that 

is inconsistent with historic production 

volumes, actions to create a market for 

the sale of engines meeting earlier 

standards in a future year, and the sale 

of previous model year engines 

representing a disproportionate amount 

of total sales in the subsequent model 

year. If emissions standards for the 

engine do not change in a given model 

year, a manufacturer may continue to 

install engines from a previous model 

year without restriction. 

EPA will also consider many factors 

in assessing whether an engine 

manufacturer has caused or aided in the 

prohibited act of stockpiling. For 

example, contractual (or otherwise 

established) business relationships of 

those persons involved in producing 

and/or selling new engines and vehicles 

could be evidence of the ability of the 

person to cause a violation. In addition, 

we would consider the particular efforts 

or influence of the alleged violator 

contributing to, leading to, or resulting 

in the prohibited act. On the other hand, 

we would also consider a person’s 

efforts to prevent such a violation as 

evidence that they did not cause the 

violation. 

E. Coast Guard’s Marine Vessel 

Certification Program 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) oversees the Maritime 

Security Program (MSP) established by 

the Maritime Security Act of 1996 and 

reauthorized by the Maritime Security 

Act of 2003 (MSA). The MSA requires 

that the Secretary of Transportation, in 

consultation with the Secretary of 

Defense, establish a fleet of active, 

commercially viable and militarily 

useful vessels to meet national defense 

and other security requirements and 

maintain a U.S. presence in 

international commercial shipping. The 

fleet consists of privately-owned, U.S.- 

flagged vessels known as the Maritime 

Security Fleet (MSF). 46 U.S.C. 53102 

outlines that vessels complying with 

applicable international agreements and 

associated guidelines are eligible for a 

certificate of inspection from Coast 

Guard, and thus inclusion in the MSF. 

The requirements of the MSP may 

have created confusion for owners of 

non-U.S.-flagged vessels regarding their 

obligation to also comply with EPA’s 

domestic marine diesel engine emission 

standards at the time they re-flag for 

inclusion in the MSF. We want to 

remind vessel owners that the MSA 

does not preempt the Clean Air Act or 

alleviate their obligation to comply with 

EPA’s marine diesel engine program, or 

any other EPA requirements that apply 

to marine vessels. Each U.S.-flagged 

vessel must comply with all of EPA’s 

domestic standards, regardless of 

whether the vessel was flagged in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44486 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

128These total estimated costs are slightly 

different than those reported in the ECA proposal, 

because the ECA proposal did not include costs 

associated with the Annex VI existing engine 

program, Tier II, or the costs associated with 

existing vessel modifications that may be required 

to accommodate the use of lower sulfur fuel. 

Further, the cost totals presented in the ECA 

package included Canadian cost estimates. 

U.S. upon original delivery into service. 

Specifically, model year 2004 and later 

marine diesel engines installed on these 

vessels must be covered by a certificate 

of conformity issued under 40 CFR Part 

94 or 40 CFR Part 1042, unless covered 

by a specific exemption or exclusion in 

those regulations. 

Owners that wish to re-flag a vessel 

for U.S. service in the MSF should 

contact EPA to determine the specific 

compliance requirements that must be 

met. 

VII. Costs and Economic Impacts 

In this section, we present the 

projected cost impacts and cost 

effectiveness of the coordinated 

emission control strategy for oceangoing vessels. We also present our 

analysis of the economic impacts of the 

coordinated strategy, which consists of 

the estimated social costs of the program 

and how those costs will likely be 

shared across stakeholders. The 

projected benefits and benefit-cost 

analysis of the coordinated strategy are 

presented in Section VIII. 

We estimate the costs of the 

coordinated strategy to be about $1.85 

billion in 2020, increasing to $3.11 

billion in 2030.128 Of the 2020 costs, 

nearly 89 percent or $1.64 billion are 

attributable to the ECA fuel sulfur 

provisions. The total operational costs 

are estimated to be $1.82 billion in 

2020. The costs to apply engine controls 

to U.S.-flagged vessels are expected to 

be $31.9 million in 2020, increasing to 

$47.4 million in 2030 as more ships are 

built to comply with Clean Air Act 

(CAA) Tier 3 NOX limits. All costs are 

presented in 2006 U.S. dollars. 

When attributed by pollutant, at a net 

present value of 3 percent from 2010 

through 2040, the NOX controls are 

expected to cost about $510 per ton of 

NOX reduced, SOX controls are expected 

to cost about $930 per ton of SOX

reduced, and the PM controls are 

expected to cost about $7,950 per ton of 

PM reduced ($500, $920, and $7,850 per 

ton of NOX, SOX, and PM respectively, 

at a net present value of 7 percent over 

the same period.) These costs are 

comparable to our other recentlyadopted mobile source programs, and 

are one of the most cost-effective 

programs in terms of NOX and PM when 

compared to recent mobile and 

stationary programs. The coordinated 

strategy also provides very cost-effective 

SOX reductions comparable to the 

Heavy-Duty Nonroad diesel rulemaking. 

The social costs of the proposed 

program are estimated to be 

approximately $3.1 billion in 2030. The 

impact of these costs on society is 

estimated to be minimal. For example, 

we estimate the cost of shipping a 20- 

foot container on the Pacific route, with 

1,700 nm of operation in the ECA, 

would increase by about $18, or less 

than 3 percent. Similarly, the price of a 

seven-day Alaska cruise that operates 

mainly in the ECA is expected to 

increase by about $7 per day. 

The estimated costs presented in this 

section are for the entire coordinated 

strategy, including those requirements 

that are the subject of this proposal and 

those that are associated with the 

proposed ECA designation. Table VII–1 

sets out the different components of the 

coordinated strategy and our ECA 

designation package, for 2020. The costs 

of the coordinated strategy consists of 

the costs associated with the MARPOL 

Annex VI global standards that we are 

implementing through APPS, some of 

which we are also adding to our CAA 

emission control program for U.S. 

vessels (Tier 2 and Tier 3 NOX emission 

control hardware for U.S. vessels; 

operating costs for the Tier 2 NOX

requirements; controls for existing 

vessels; certain compliance 

requirements). Also included are the 

costs associated with the U.S. portion of 

the ECA package (Tier 3 hardware and 

operating costs; fuel sulfur hardware 

and operating costs). The costs 

associated with the Canadian portion of 

the ECA package are not included in the 

costs of the coordinated strategy. 

Note that, with regard to hardware 

costs, the coordinated strategy includes 

the entire cost for new U.S. vessels to 

comply with the Tier 3 NOX standards 

and ECA fuel limits, even though some 

of the benefits from using these 

emission control systems will occur 

outside the United States. Conversely, 

we do not include any new vessel Tier 

3 or fuel hardware costs for foreign 

vessels that operate in U.S. waters even 

though a significant share of the benefits 

of the coordinated strategy will arise 

from foreign vessels that comply with 

the ECA engine and fuel sulfur limits 

while operating within the U.S. ECA. 

An alternative approach would be to 

allocate a portion of hardware costs of 

complying with the Tier 3 NOX

standards and the fuel sulfur limits to 

the coordinated strategy. For example, 

analysis of MARAD port entrance data 

shows that about 30 percent of the 

vessels that enter U.S. ports account for 

about 75 percent of the vessel entrances. 

This suggests it may be reasonable to 

allocate the hardware costs for 30 

percent of the new foreign vessels to the 

coordinated strategy. Similarly, it may 

be reasonable to discount the share of 

estimated hardware costs included in 

the coordinated strategy costs for those 

U.S. vessels that do not operate 

primarily between two U.S. ports. We 

request comment on the allocation of 

hardware costs and on whether the U.S. 

should adopt the alternative approach 

described above or some other method 

to allocate these costs. 

The regulatory changes proposed for 

Category 1 and 2 engines are not 

included in this cost analysis as they are 

intended to be compliance flexibilities 

and not result in increased compliance 

costs. Similarly, the technical 

amendments proposed for other 

engines, would not have significant 

economic impacts and are therefore not 

addressed here. Finally, compliance 

costs for gas turbine engines are not 

addressed separately because they 

would be similar to those for diesel 

marine engines. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44487 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.001</GPH>
44488 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

129Research Triangle Institute, 2009. ‘‘Global 

Trade and Fuels Assessment— Future Trends and 

Effects of Designating Requiring Clean Fuels in the 

Marine Sector’’. Prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

130 In this analysis, the U.S. included the lower 

48 contiguous states and southeastern Alaska. 131Research Triangle Institute, 2009. ‘‘Global 

Trade and Fuels Assessment— Future Trends and 

Effects of Designating Requiring Clean Fuels in the 

Marine Sector’’. Prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

132Note that distillate fuel has a higher energy 

content, on a per ton basis, than residual fuel. As 

such, there is an offsetting cost savings, on a per 

metric ton basis, for switching to distillate fuel. 

Based on a 5 percent higher energy content for 

distillate, the net equivalent cost increase is 

estimated as $123 for each metric ton of residual 

fuel that is being replaced by distillate fuel. 

This cost analysis relies on a number 

of assumptions about the prices of 

various engine and fuel hardware 

components, as well as fuel 

consumption, the number of affected 

vessels, and their operation. We seek 

comment on all aspects of this analysis, 

including all of these assumptions and 

the methodology we used to estimate 

the costs of the program. 

A. Estimated Fuel Costs 

Although the ECA fuel sulfur limits 

are not part of this proposal, they are 

part of the coordinated strategy and we 

are including them in this cost analysis. 

However, we consider the costs and 

benefits of ECA designation in this 

proposal, as they are part of our 

coordinated strategy for ocean-going 

vessels. 

Current regulations impose a sulfur 

limitation of 15 ppm for distillate fuels 

produced at refineries in the U.S. The 

coordinated strategy would impose no 

additional costs for refiners in the U.S. 

and would actually allow additional 

flexibility. Specifically, we are 

proposing to allow distillate fuel to have 

up to 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in OGVs. 

The ECA fuel requirements will impose 

a cost to the ship owners. This section 

presents estimates of the cost of 

compliance with the 1,000 ppm sulfur 

limit in the U.S. ECA. 

Distillate fuel will likely be used to 

meet the 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur limit, 

beginning in 2015. As such, the primary 

cost of the fuel sulfur limit for ship 

owners will be that associated with 

switching from heavy fuel oil to highercost distillate fuel. Some engines 

already operate on distillate fuel and 

would not be affected by fuel switching 

costs. However, distillate fuel costs may 

be affected by the need to further refine 

the distillate fuel to meet the 1,000 ppm 

sulfur limit. 

To investigate these effects, studies 

were performed on the impact of a 

North American ECA on global fuel 

production and costs, to inform the 

application for such ECA.129 These 

studies were performed prior to the ECA 

being defined; thus, we picked a 

maximum distance boundary to ensure 

a conservative cost analysis. 

Specifically, we used the total fuel 

consumption in the U.S. and Canada 

exclusive economic zones.130 As a 

result, the modeled fuel volumes are 

higher than would be affected by the 

proposed ECA. The studies are relevant 

to this regulation as well, since they 

estimate the cost of 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel for ships operating in such ECA 

zones. 

To assess the effect on the refining 

industry of the imposition of a 1,000 

ppm sulfur limit on fuels operating in 

the ECA, we needed to first understand 

and characterize the fuels market. 

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) was 

contracted to conduct a fuels study 

using an activity-based economic 

approach. The study established 

baseline bunker fuel demand, projected 

a growth rate for bunker fuel demand, 

and established future bunker fuel 

demand volumes.131 These volumes 

then became the input to the World Oil 

Refining Logistics and Demand 

(WORLD) model to evaluate the effect of 

an ECA on fuel cost. 

The WORLD model was run by Ensys 

Energy & Systems, the owner and 

developer of the refinery model. The 

WORLD model is the only such model 

currently developed for this purpose 

and was developed by a team of 

international petroleum consultants. It 

has been widely used by industries, 

government agencies, and Organization 

of the Petroleum Exporting Countries 

(OPEC) over the past 13 years, including 

the Cross Government/Industry 

Scientific Group of Experts, established 

to evaluate the effects of the different 

fuel options proposed under the 

revision of MARPOL Annex VI. The 

model incorporates crude sources, 

global regions, refinery operations, and 

world economics. The results of the 

WORLD model have been comparable to 

other independent predictions of global 

fuel, air pollutant emissions and 

economic predictions. 

The WORLD model was run for 2020, 

in which the control case included a 

fuel sulfur level of 1,000 ppm in the 

U.S. The baseline case was modeled as 

‘‘business as usual’’ in which ships 

continue to use the same fuel as today. 

Because of the recent increases and 

fluctuations in oil prices, we had 

additional WORLD model runs 

conducted. For these runs, we used new 

reference case and high oil price 

estimates that were recently released by 

the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA). In addition to 

increased oil price estimates, the 

updated model accounts for increases in 

natural gas costs, capital costs for 

refinery upgrades, and product 

distribution costs. 

Because only a small portion of global 

marine fuel is consumed in the ECA, the 

overall impact on global fuel production 

is small. Global fuel use in 2020 by 

ships is projected to be 500 million 

metric tonnes/yr. Of this amount, 90 

million metric tonnes of fuel is used for 

U.S./Canadian trade, or about 18 

percent of total global fuel use. In the 

proposed ECA, less than 20 million 

metric tonnes of fuel will be consumed 

in 2020, which is less than 4 percent of 

total global marine fuel use. Of the 

amount of fuel to be consumed in the 

proposed ECA in 2020, about 4 million 

metric tonnes of distillate will be 

consumed in the Business as Usual 

(BAU) case, which is about 20 percent 

of the amount of total fuel to be 

consumed in the proposed ECA. 

There are two main components to 

projected increased marine fuel cost 

associated with the ECA. The first 

component results from shifting from 

operation on residual fuel to operation 

on higher cost distillate fuel. This is the 

dominant cost component. However, 

there is also a small cost associated with 

desulfurizing the distillate to meet the 

1,000 ppm sulfur standard in the ECA. 

Based on the WORLD modeling, the 

average increase in costs associated with 

switching from marine residual to 

distillate will be $145 per metric 

tonne.132 This is the cost increase that 

will be borne by the shipping 

companies purchasing the fuel. Of this 

amount, $6 per metric tonne is the 

increase in costs associated with 

distillate desulfurization. 

Table IV– summarizes the fuel cost 

estimates with and without an ECA. In 

the baseline case, fuel volumes for 

operation are 18% marine gas oil 

(MGO), 7% marine diesel oil (MDO), 

and 75% IFO. Weighted average 

baseline distillate fuel cost is $462/ 

tonne. In the ECA, all fuel volumes are 

modeled as MGO, at $468/tonne. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44489 

TABLE VII–2—ESTIMATE MARINE FUEL COSTS

Fuel Units Baseline ECA 

MGO .................................................................................. $/bbl .................................................................................. $61.75 $62.23 

$/tonne ............................................................................. 464 468 

MDO .................................................................................. $/bbl .................................................................................. 61.89 62.95 

$/tonne ............................................................................. 458 466 

IFO .................................................................................... $/bbl .................................................................................. 49.87 49.63 

$/tonne ............................................................................. 322 321 

The increased cost of distillate 

desulfurization is due both to additional 

coking and hydrotreating capacities at 

refineries. Cokers crack residual blends 

in IFO bunker fuel into distillates, using 

heat and residence time to make the 

conversion. The process also produces 

useful byproducts such as petroleum 

coke and off gas. The WORLD model 

did not use hydrocracking technology to 

convert residual fuels into distillates for 

either the reference or high price crude 

cases. Because of the higher capital and 

operating costs of hydrocrackers, the 

WORLD model favored the use of 

coking units. As such, the WORLD 

model assumed that cokers would 

convert the residual blendstocks in 

Intermediate Fuel Oil grades to 

distillates. The model added coking 

processes to refineries located in the 

U.S. and, to a lesser extent, to refiner 

regions outside of the U.S. Specifically, 

the model added one additional coking 

unit with a capacity of 30 thousand 

barrels per stream day (KBPSD), and one 

to two hydrocracking units representing 

50 and 80 KBPSD additional capacity. 

The WORLD model also added new 

conventional distillate hydrotreating 

capacity to lower the sulfur levels for 

the marine distillate fuel, in addition to 

the existing slack distillate 

hydrotreating capacity that existed in 

refiner regions for these fuels. In 

addition, the model used lighter crudes 

and adjusted operating parameters in 

refineries. This had the effect of 

increasing the projected production of 

lower sulfur distillate fuels in lieu of 

adding distillate hydrotreating capacity. 

The model elected to use lower sulfur 

crudes and used operational 

adjustments. Higher capital and 

operating costs of new units under the 

high-priced crude scenario favored use 

of existing refinery capacity made 

available from lower global refiner 

utilizations. 

B. Estimated Engine Costs 

To quantify the cost impacts 

associated with the coordinated 

strategy, we estimated the hardware and 

operational costs to U.S.-flagged ships, 

as well as affected foreign-flagged ships. 

The hardware costs are only applied to 

U.S.-flagged vessels, and include those 

associated with the CAA Tier 2 and Tier 

3 NOX standards, the Annex VI existing 

engine program, and the use of lower 

sulfur fuel. Tier 2 hardware costs 

consist of changes to the engine block 

and the migration from mechanical fuel 

injection to common rail fuel injection 

systems. Tier 3 hardware costs include 

engine modifications, the migration 

from mechanical fuel injection to 

common rail fuel injection systems, and 

the installation of Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR). Hardware costs 

associated with the use of lower sulfur 

fuel are from applying additional tanks 

and equipment to enable a vessel to 

switch from residual fuel to lower sulfur 

fuel. These equipment costs were 

applied to those new vessels that may 

need additional hardware, and also 

include the estimated cost of retrofitting 

the portion of the fleet that may require 

additional hardware to accommodate 

the use of lower sulfur fuel in 2015. The 

hardware costs also include a per engine 

cost of $10,000 associated with the 

proposed requirement to test each 

production engine (§ 1042.302). These 

are the sole engine hardware costs 

specifically attributable to our Clean Air 

Act rule. The programmatic changes 

under consideration for Category 1 and 

2 engines (see Section VI.C, above), 

would not impose compliance costs but 

instead are intended to facilitate 

compliance with both Annex VI and our 

Clean Air Act requirements for those 

engines. 

Although we have developed 

hardware cost estimates for all ships 

that may enter U.S. ports, we do not 

believe that it is appropriate to attribute 

all of these costs to emissions 

reductions in the U.S. Clearly, this 

technology will be used globally and 

will result in emissions reductions in 

many other countries. At the same time, 

some amount of the hardware costs 

should be attributed to the emissions 

reductions achieved in the U.S. To 

address these considerations, we 

include the hardware costs for only 

U.S.-flagged vessels in our cost 

estimates, and present the hardware 

costs for foreign-flagged vessels as a 

separate analysis. The operational costs, 

which represent the majority of the 

costs to ships, are included in our cost 

totals for both U.S.- and foreign-flagged 

vessels. 

The operational costs were applied to 

both U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels 

and include additional operational costs 

associated with the applicable NOX

limits and the use of lower sulfur fuel. 

The operational costs for NOX controls 

consist of the additional fuel required 

due to an estimated two percent fuel 

penalty associated with the use of 

technologies to meet CAA Tier 2 and 

global Tier II NOX standards, and the 

use of urea for ships equipped with an 

SCR unit to meet CAA Tier 3 and global 

Tier III NOX standards. The operational 

costs associated with the use of lower 

sulfur fuel include both the differential 

cost of using lower sulfur fuel that 

meets ECA standards instead of using 

marine distillate fuel, and the 

differential cost of using lower sulfur 

fuel that meets ECA standards instead of 

using residual fuel. 

To assess the potential cost impacts, 

we must understand (1) the makeup of 

the fleet of ships expected to visit the 

U.S. when these requirements go into 

effect, (2) the emission reduction 

technologies expected to be used, and 

(3) the cost of these technologies. 

Chapter 5 of the draft RIA presents this 

analysis in greater detail. The total 

engine and vessel costs associated with 

the coordinated strategy are based on a 

cost per unit value applied to the 

number of affected vessels. Operational 

costs are based on fuel consumption 

values determined in the inventory 

analysis (Section 5.2). This section 

discusses a brief overview of the 

methodology used to develop the 

hardware and operational costs, and the 

methodology used to develop a fleet of 

future vessels to which these hardware 

and engineering costs were applied. 

(1) Methodology 

To estimate the hardware costs to 

ships that may be affected by the 

coordinated strategy, we used an 

approach similar to that used to 

estimate the emissions inventory. 

Specifically, the same inputs were used 

to develop a fleet of ships by ship type 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44490 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

133 ICF International, ‘‘Costs of Emission 

Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine 

Engines,’’ prepared for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, December 2008. EPA Report 

Number: EPA–420–R–09–008. 

and engine type that may be expected to 

visit U.S. ports through the year 2040. 

In order to determine the cost of 

applying emission reduction technology 

on a per vessel basis, ICF International 

was contracted by the U.S. EPA to 

conduct a cost study of the various 

compliance strategies expected to be 

used to meet the new NOX standards 

and fuel sulfur requirements.133 ICF was 

instructed to develop cost estimates 

covering a range of vessel types and 

sizes, which could be scaled according 

to engine speed and power to arrive at 

an estimated cost per vessel. 

A series of both slow-speed and 

medium-speed engine configurations 

were selected and used to provide an 

understanding of the costs of applying 

emission control technologies 

associated with the coordinated 

strategy. The engine configurations were 

selected based on a review of 2005 U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers ‘Entrances and 

Clearances’ data which was used to 

determine the characteristics of engines 

on those vessels that call on U.S. ports 

most frequently. This data represents a 

broad range of propulsion power for 

each engine type (slow and medium 

speed engines). The costs developed for 

these engine configurations were used 

to develop a $/kW value that could be 

applied to any slow or medium speed 

engine. Using the average propulsion 

power by ship type presented in the 

inventory analysis, the per-vessel 

hardware costs were then applied to the 

estimated number of applicable vessels 

built after the standards take effect. 

(a) Hardware Costs 

The hardware cost estimates include 

variable costs (components, assembly, 

and the associated markup) and fixed 

costs (tooling, research and 

development, redesign efforts, and 

certification). Hardware costs associated 

with the Annex VI existing engine 

standards were applied to the portion of 

existing U.S.-flagged vessels built 

between 1990 and 1999 expected to be 

subject to these standards (engines with 

a per-cylinder displacement of at least 

90 liters and a power output of over 

5,000 kW) in 2011 when the standards 

go into effect. These costs were applied 

over a five year period beginning in 

2011 where 20 percent of the total 

subject fleet was estimated to undergo 

service each year. The existing engine 

program fixed costs were phased in over 

a five year period beginning in 2010 and 

applied on a per-vessel basis. 

Hardware costs associated with the 

CAA Tier 2 program were applied to all 

new U.S.-flagged vessels beginning in 

the year 2011 when the standards take 

effect. The fixed costs associated with 

Tier 2 standards are expected to be 

incurred over a five year period; 

however, as the Tier 2 standards take 

effect in 2011, it was assumed that 

manufacturers are nearing the end of 

their research and development. In 

order to capture all of these costs, all 

fixed costs that would have been 

incurred during that five year phase-in 

period were applied in the year 2010. 

Hardware costs associated with Tier 3 

were estimated for U.S. vessels and 

were applied as of 2016. Because of the 

global scope of the Tier III standards, 

and the fact that other ECAs exist today 

and more may exist in the future, we do 

not include hardware costs for Tier III 

emission controls on foreign-flagged 

vessels. However, for completeness, 

Section 5.2 of the draft RIA presents 

these hardware cost estimates 

separately. The fixed costs associated 

with Tier 3 were phased in over a five 

year period beginning in 2011. 

Hardware costs associated with the 

use of lower sulfur fuel are estimated 

separately for both new and existing 

vessels that may require additional 

hardware to accommodate the use of 

lower sulfur fuel. The costs expected to 

be incurred by U.S.-flagged vessels are 

included in the total cost of the 

coordinated strategy, while the cost to 

foreign-flagged vessels is presented as a 

separate analysis. The fuel sulfur 

control related hardware costs for new 

vessels begin to apply in 2015, while all 

retrofit costs are expected to be incurred 

by 2015 and as such are applied in this 

year. The fixed costs for both new and 

existing vessels that may require 

additional hardware to accommodate 

the use of lower sulfur fuel are applied 

on a per-vessel basis and are phased in 

over a five year period beginning as of 

2010. 

(b) Operational Costs 

The operational costs estimated here 

are composed of three parts: (1) The 

estimated increase in fuel consumption 

expected to occur with the use of Tier 

II technologies on U.S.- and foreignflagged vessels, (2) the differential cost 

of using lower sulfur fuel applicable for 

both U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels, 

and (3) the use of urea with SCR as a 

Tier III NOX emission reduction 

technology on both U.S.- and foreignflagged vessels. The fuel consumption 

values associated with Tier II and Tier 

III standards were determined in the 

inventory analysis (see Chapter 3 of the 

draft RIA), with an estimated Tier II fuel 

consumption penalty of 2 percent (see 

Chapter 4 of the draft RIA) The two 

percent fuel penalty estimate is based 

on the use of modifications to the fuel 

delivery system to achieve Tier II NOX

reductions, and does not reflect the 

possibility that there may be other 

technologies available to manufacturers 

that could offset this fuel penalty. 

Additionally, Tier III will provide the 

opportunity to re-optimize engines for 

fuel economy when using 

aftertreatment, such as SCR, to provide 

NOX reductions similar to the 

compliance strategy for some heavyduty truck manufacturers using urea 

SCR to meet our 2010 truck standard. 

The differential cost of using lower 

sulfur fuel is discussed above in Section 

VII.A of this Preamble. The estimated 

urea cost associated with the use of Tier 

III SCR is derived from a urea dosage 

rate that is 7.5 percent of the fuel 

consumption rate. 

Operating costs per vessel vary 

depending on what year the vessel was 

built, e.g., vessels built as of 2016 will 

incur operating costs associated with 

the use of urea necessary when using 

SCR as a Tier III NOX emission control 

technology, while vessels built prior to 

2016 do not use urea but will incur 

operating costs associated with the 

differential cost of using lower sulfur 

fuel. Further, we have assumed vessels 

built as of 2011 that meet Tier II 

standards will incur a 2 percent fuel 

consumption penalty; see Table 5–31 of 

the draft RIA for further details on fuel 

costs and fuel volumes. In addition, 

vessels built as of 2016 that meet Tier 

III NOX standards while traveling in an 

ECA are still required to at least meet 

Tier II NOX standards outside of an ECA 

and will continue to incur the 

associated fuel penalty. Therefore, an 

estimated fleet had to be developed over 

a range of years, and provide a breakout 

of ships by age in each year. 

(2) Fleet Development 

There are currently no available 

estimates of the number of ships that 

may visit U.S. ports in the future or 

comprehensive engine sales predictions. 

Therefore, to develop the costs 

associated with the coordinated 

strategy, an approximation of the 

number of ships by age and engine type 

that may visit U.S. ports in the future 

was constructed. To characterize the 

fleet of ships visiting U.S. ports, we 

used U.S. port call data collected in 

2002 for the inventory port analysis (see 

Chapter 3 of the draft RIA) which 

included only vessels with C3 engines 

where the engine size and type was 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44491 

134 In order to separate slow speed engines from 

medium speed engines where that information was 

not explicitly available, 2-stroke engines were 

assumed to be slow speed, where 4-stroke engines 

were assumed to be medium speed. 135http://www.sea-web.com 

identified.134 We used this data with the 

growth rates developed in the inventory 

analysis to estimate how many ships, by 

ship type and engine type, would visit 

U.S. ports in future years. Due to the 

long life of these vessels, and the fact 

that there has been no significant event 

that would have changed the 

composition of the world fleet since this 

baseline data was taken, it is reasonable 

to use 2002 data as the basis for 

modeling the future fleet upon which to 

base hardware cost estimates. An 

analysis is presented in Section 5.1.2.2 

of Chapter 5 of the draft RIA which 

confirms the reasonableness of this 

assumption using 2007 MARAD data. 

The research performed for this cost 

analysis was based on differentiating 

between slow-speed diesel (SSD) and 

medium-speed diesel (MSD) engines, 

and separate $/kW values were 

developed for each of these engine 

types. The separation by engine type 

was also necessary to allow for the use 

of the age distribution formula 

determined by the inventory analysis 

(see Chapter 3 of the draft RIA) to 

determine how many vessels the 

hardware and/or operational costs are 

applicable to in each year. 

The ship type information gathered 

from this baseline data, for the purposes 

of both this analysis and the inventory, 

was categorized into one of the 

following ship types: Auto Carrier, Bulk 

Carrier, Container, General Cargo, 

Miscellaneous, Passenger, Refrigerated 

Cargo (Reefer), Roll-On Roll-Off (RoRo), 

and Tankers. Average engine and vessel 

characteristics were developed from the 

baseline data, and these values were 

used to represent the characteristics of 

new vessels used in this cost analysis 

(see Chapter 3 of the draft RIA). 

Estimated future fleets were developed 

by ship type and engine type through 

the year 2040 for both new and existing 

vessels and both U.S.- and foreignflagged vessels. Hardware costs were 

applied on a per-vessel basis. 

Although most ships primarily 

operate on residual fuel, they typically 

carry some amount of distillate fuel as 

well. Switching to the use of lower 

sulfur distillate fuel is the compliance 

strategy assumed here to be used by 

both new and existing ships in 2015 

when the new lower sulfur fuel 

standards go into effect. To estimate the 

potential cost of this compliance 

strategy, we evaluated the distillate 

storage capacity of the current existing 

fleet to estimate how many ships may 

require additional hardware to 

accommodate the use of lower sulfur 

fuel. We performed this analysis on the 

entire global fleet listed in Lloyd’s 

database as of 2008.135 Of the nearly 

43,000 vessels listed, approximately 

20,000 vessels had provided Lloyds 

with fuel tankage information, cruise 

speed, and propulsion engine power 

data. Using this information, we were 

able to estimate how far each vessel 

could travel on its existing distillate 

carrying capacity. 

In order to determine if the current 

distillate capacity of a particular ship 

was sufficient to call on a U.S. ECA 

without requiring additional hardware, 

we evaluated whether or not each ship 

could travel 1,140 nm, or the distance 

between the Port of Los Angeles and the 

Port of Tacoma. This distance was 

selected because it represents one of the 

longer trips a ship could travel without 

stopping at another port, and should 

overestimate the number of vessels that 

would require such a modification. The 

resulting percentages of ships estimated 

to require a retrofit were then applied to 

the number of existing ships in the 2015 

fleet to estimate the total cost of this 

compliance strategy for existing ships 

built prior to 2015. The same 

percentages were also applied to all new 

ships built as of 2015 to determine the 

number of ships that may require 

additional hardware and estimate the 

cost of this compliance strategy for new 

vessels. 

(3) NOX Reduction Technologies 

(a) Tier 2 

Most engine manufacturers are 

expected to be able to meet Tier 2 NOX

standards using engine modifications. 

This cost estimate includes the 

hardware costs associated with the use 

of retarded fuel injection timing, higher 

compression ratios, and better fuel 

distribution. There are no variable costs 

associated with the engine 

modifications as the changes are not 

expected to require any additional 

hardware. Some engines may also be 

equipped with common-rail fuel 

systems instead of mechanical fuel 

injection to meet Tier 2 NOX standards. 

It is expected that approximately 75 

percent of SSD and 30 percent of MSD 

engines will get this modification for 

Tier 2. The Tier 2 hardware costs 

developed here include the costs of the 

migration of some engines to commonrail fuel systems. It was also estimated 

that these technologies may increase 

fuel consumption by up to 2 percent; 

this fuel penalty is included in the Tier 

2 operational costs. Tier 2 hardware 

costs included in the total estimated 

cost of the coordinated strategy are only 

associated with U.S.-flagged vessels; 

operational costs are applied to both 

U.S.-and foreign-flagged vessels. 

(b) Tier 3 

Tier 3 NOX standards are 

approximately 80 percent below Tier 1 

NOX standards, and are likely to require 

exhaust aftertreatment such as SCR. ICF 

performed a detailed cost analysis for 

the U.S. EPA that included surveying 

engine and emission control technology 

manufacturers regarding these advanced 

technology strategies and their potential 

costs. Tier 3 NOX standards are 

projected to be met through the use of 

SCR systems. While other technologies 

such as EGR or those that include 

introduction of water into the 

combustion chamber either through 

fumigation, fuel emulsions, or direct 

water injection may also enable Tier 3 

compliance, we assume they will only 

be selected if they are less costly than 

SCR. Therefore, we have based this 

analysis on the exclusive use of SCR. 

(c) Engine Modifications 

In addition to SCR, it is expected that 

manufacturers will also use compound 

or two-stage turbocharging as well as 

electronic valving to enhance 

performance and emission reductions to 

meet Tier 3 NOX standards. Engine 

modifications to meet Tier 3 emission 

levels will include a higher percentage 

of common-rail fuel injection coupled 

with two-stage turbocharging and 

electronic valving. Engine 

manufacturers estimate that nearly all 

SSD and 80 percent of MSD engines will 

use common-rail fuel injection. Two 

stage turbocharging will most likely be 

used on least 70 percent of all engines 

required to meet Tier 3 emission levels. 

Electronically- (hydraulically) actuated 

intake and exhaust valves for MSD and 

electronically-actuated exhaust valves 

for SSD are necessary to accommodate 

two-stage turbocharging. Additionally, 

the remaining SSD engines still using 

mechanical injection (approximately 25 

percent mechanically-controlled, and 75 

percent electronically-controlled) are 

expected to migrate to common rail for 

Tier 3, while an additional 40 percent 

of MSD engines are expected to receive 

common rail totaling approximately 80 

percent of all MSD engines. The engine 

modification variable costs were applied 

to all new U.S.-flagged vessels equipped 

with either SSD or MSD engines. Costs 

to foreign-flagged vessel expected to 

visit U.S. ports are presented as a 

separate analysis in Chapter 5 of the 

draft RIA, and are not included in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44492 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

136http://www.iicl.org, Institute of International 

Container Lessors. 

137 Kristensen, Hans Otto Holmegaard, 

‘‘Preliminary Ship Design of Container Ships, Bulk 

Carriers, Tankers, and Ro-Ro Ships. Assessment of 

Environmental Impact from Sea-Borne Transport 

Compared with Landbased Transport,’’ March, 

2008. 

138http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/

conc2en/maritimefreightrates.html. 

139http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/

invsub/results/hilite.asp?Symbol=SSW. 

140Based on a container ship carrying nearly 

9,000 TEUs traveling from Hong Kong to the Port 

of Los Angeles (approximately 6,400 nm) with a 

cruise speed of 25 nm/hr, the round trip time is 

nearly 21 days and this trip could be made roughly 

16 times per year. 

total estimated cost of the coordinated 

strategy. 

(4) SOX/PM Emission Reduction 

Technology 

In addition to Tier 3 NOX standards, 

the IMO ECA requirements also include 

lower fuel sulfur limits that will result 

in reductions in SOX and PM. Category 

3 marine engines typically operate on 

heavy fuel oil with a sulfur content of 

2.7 percent, therefore significant SOX

and PM reductions will be achieved 

using distillate fuels with a sulfur 

content of 0.1 percent. This cost 

analysis is based on the assumption that 

vessel operators will operate their 

engines using lower sulfur fuel in the 

proposed ECA. We believe fuel 

switching will be the primary 

compliance approach; fuel scrubbers 

would be used in the event that the 

operator expected to realize a cost 

savings and are not considered in this 

analysis. In some cases, additional 

capacity and equipment to 

accommodate the use of lower sulfur 

fuel may need to be installed on a 

vessel. The potential costs due to these 

additional modifications applied to new 

ships as well as retrofits to any existing 

ships are discussed here, and these 

hardware costs are included as part of 

the total cost of this coordinated 

program. 

Although most ships operate on heavy 

fuel oil, they typically carry small 

amounts of distillate fuel. Some vessel 

modifications and new operating 

practices may be necessary to use lower 

sulfur distillate fuels on vessels 

designed to operate primarily on 

residual fuel. Installation and use of a 

fuel cooler, associated piping, and 

viscosity meters to the fuel treatment 

system may be required to ensure 

viscosity matches between the fuel and 

injection system design. While there are 

many existing ships that already have 

the capacity to operate on both heavy 

fuel oil and distillate fuel and have a 

separate fuel tank systems to support 

each type of fuel, some ships may not 

have sufficient onboard storage 

capacity. If a new or segregated tank is 

desired, additional equipment for fuel 

delivery and control of these systems 

may be required. 

(5) NOX and SOX Emission Reduction 

Technology Costs 

(a) NOX Emission Reduction 

Technology 

The costs associated with SCR 

include variable and fixed costs. SCR 

hardware costs include the reactor, 

dosage pump, urea injectors, piping, 

bypass valve, an acoustic horn or a 

cleaning probe, the control unit and 

wiring, and the urea tank (the size of the 

tank is based on 250 hours of normal 

operation when the ship is operating in 

the ECA and the SCR system is 

activated.) The size of the tank is 

dependent on the frequency with which 

the individual ship owner prefers to fill 

the urea tank. The methodology used 

here to estimate the capacity of the SCR 

systems is based on the power rating of 

the propulsion engines only. Auxiliary 

engine power represents about 20 

percent of total installed power on a 

vessel; however, it would be unusual to 

operate both propulsion and auxiliary 

engines at 100 percent load. Typically, 

ships operate under full propulsion 

power only while at sea when the SCR 

is not operating; when nearing ports, the 

auxiliary engine is operating at high 

loads while the propulsion engine is 

operating at very low loads. 

In this analysis, we determined the 

average number of hours a ship would 

spend calling on a U.S. port: If the call 

was straight in and straight out at 200 

nm, the average time spent was slightly 

over 35 hours. If the distance travelled 

was substantial, such as from the Port of 

Los Angeles to the Port of Tacoma, or 

1140 nm, the average time spent 

travelling was approximately 75 hours. 

Therefore, the size of the tanks and 

corresponding $/kW values estimated 

here to carry enough urea for 250 hours 

of continuous operation may be an 

overestimate. Based on 250 hours of 

operation, a range of urea tank sizes 

from 20 m3 to approximately 256 m3

was determined for the six different 

engine configurations used in this 

analysis. 

To understand what impacts this may 

have on the cargo hauling capacity of 

the ship, we looked at the ISO standard 

containers used today. Currently, over 

two-thirds of the containers in use today 

are 40 feet long, total slightly over 77 m3

and are the equivalent of two TEU.136

The urea tank sizes estimated here 

reflect a cargo equivalence of 0.5–2 

TEUs, based on a capacity sufficient for 

250 hours of operation. The TEU 

capacity of container ships, for example, 

continues to increase and can be as high 

as 13,000 TEUs;137 while not all ports 

are equipped to handle ships of this 

size, feeder ships (ships that carry 

containers to ocean-going vessels in 

smaller ports) have also increased in 

size to carry as much as 2,000 TEUs. 

Based on a rate of approximately $1,300 

per TEU to ship a container from Asia 

to the U.S., a net profit margin of 10%, 

and an average of 16 trips per year, the 

estimated cost due to displaced cargo to 

call on a U.S./Canada ECA may be 

$2,100.138 The cost139 analysis140

presented here does not include 

displaced cargo due to the variability of 

tank sizes owners choose to install. 

To estimate the SCR hardware costs 

associated with newly built ships, we 

needed to generate an equation in terms 

of $/kW that could be applied to other 

engine sizes. Therefore, the $/kW values 

representing the hardware costs 

estimated for the six different engine 

types and sizes used in this analysis was 

developed using a curve fit for both SSD 

and MSD engines. The resulting $/kW 

values range from $40–$80 per kW for 

MSD, and $40–70 for SSD. These costs 

were then applied based on the 

characteristics of the average ship types 

described in the inventory section of the 

draft RIA (see Chapter 3) to the 

representative portion of the future fleet 

in order to estimate the total costs 

associated with this program. Table VII– 

4 presents the estimated costs of this 

technology as applied to different ship 

and engine types representing the 

average ship characteristics discussed in 

Section VII.A.2. 

(b) Lower Sulfur Fuel Hardware Costs 

This cost analysis is based on the use 

of switching to lower sulfur fuel to meet 

the ECA fuel sulfur standards. The costs 

presented here may be incurred by some 

existing and some newly-built ships if 

additional fuel tank equipment is 

required to facilitate the use of lower 

sulfur fuel. Based on existing vessel 

fleet data, we estimate that 

approximately one-third of existing 

vessels may need additional equipment 

installed to accommodate additional 

lower sulfur fuel storage capacity 

beyond that installed on comparable 

new ships. In order to include any costs 

that may be incurred on new vessels 

that choose to add additional lower 

sulfur fuel capacity, we also estimated 

that one-third of new vessels may 

require additional hardware. Separate $/ 

kW values were developed for new and 

existing vessels as the existing vessel 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44493 

141The values presented in Table VII–3 are 

provided only to show what the estimated costs 

would be for a range of vessel types given average 

characteristics (such as DWT, total main, and total 

auxiliary power) for both SSD and MSD engine 

types. Not all vessels will require all of these 

technologies; for example, it is estimated that only 

30 percent of MSD will get common-rail fuel 

injection systems for Tier II. 

retrofit would likely require more labor 

to complete installation. 

The size of the tank is dependent on 

the frequency with which the individual 

ship owner prefers to fill the lower 

sulfur fuel tank. The size of the tanks 

and corresponding $/kW value 

estimated here will carry capacity 

sufficient for 250 hours of propulsion 

and auxiliary engine operation. This is 

most likely an overestimate of the 

amount of lower sulfur fuel a ship 

owner would need to carry, resulting in 

an overestimate of the total cost to 

existing and new vessels. The tank sizes 

based on 250 hours of operation and 

based on the six different engine 

configuration used in this analysis range 

from 240 m3 to nearly 2,000 m3. This 

would be the equivalent of 6–50 TEUs. 

This cost analysis does not reflect other 

design options such as partitioning of a 

residual fuel tank to allow for lower 

sulfur fuel capacity which would reduce 

the amount of additional space required, 

nor does this analysis reflect the 

possibility that some ships may have 

already been designed to carry smaller 

amounts of distillate fuel in separate 

tanks for purposes other than 

continuous propulsion. The $/kW value 

hardware cost values for the six data 

points corresponding to the six different 

engine types and sizes used in this 

analysis are $2–7 for SSD and $3–8 for 

MSD. A curve fit was determined for the 

slow-speed engine as well as for the 

medium speed engines to determine a $/ 

kW value for each engine type. Table 

VII–3 presents the estimated costs of the 

technologies used to meet the different 

standards as applied to different ship 

and engine types representing the 

average ship characteristics discussed in 

Section VII.A.2. The estimated hardware 

costs of retrofitting existing U.S.-flagged 

vessels that may require additional 

hardware to accommodate the use of 

lower sulfur fuel is estimated to be 

$10.4 million in 2015. 

TABLE VII–3—ESTIMATED VARIABLE COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ON A PER-SHIP BASIS—BY SHIP TYPE

AND ENGINE TYPE 141

Ship type 

Engine 

speed 

Average 

propulsion 

power (kW) 

MFI to 

common rail 

EFI to 

common rail 

Tier 3 (SCR 

and 

engine 

modifications) 

Lower 

sulfur fuel 

hardware— 

new vessels 

Lower Sulfur 

fuel 

hardware—existing vessels 

Auto Carrier ............................... MSD 9640 $80,500 30,400 $566,000 42,300 $56,400 

Bulk Carrier ............................... MSD 6360 67,200 24,600 479,000 36,900 48,500 

Container ................................... MSD 13878 92,300 35,400 678,000 49,200 66,600 

General Cargo ........................... MSD 5159 60,400 21,700 448,000 34,900 45,600 

Passenger ................................. MSD 23762 109,600 42,800 939,000 65,400 90,400 

Reefer ........................................ MSD 7360 71,900 26,600 506,000 38,500 50,900 

RoRo ......................................... MSD 8561 76,700 28,700 538,000 40,500 53,800 

Tanker ....................................... MSD 6697 68,800 25,300 488,000 37,400 49,300 

Misc. .......................................... MSD 9405 79,800 30,000 560,000 41,900 55,800 

Auto Carrier ............................... SSD 11298 152,400 55,500 819,000 48,000 64,800 

Bulk Carrier ............................... SSD 8434 132,900 48,400 669,000 42,700 57,700 

Container ................................... SSD 27454 211,600 77,200 1,521,000 63,900 86,700 

General Cargo ........................... SSD 7718 127,000 46,200 630,000 41,100 55,500 

Passenger ................................. SSD 23595 201,500 73,500 1,374,000 61,200 83,000 

Reefer ........................................ SSD 10449 147,200 53,600 776,000 46,500 62,900 

RoRo ......................................... SSD 15702 174,300 63,500 1,034,000 53,900 72,900 

Tanker ....................................... SSD 9755 142,600 51,900 739,000 45,300 61,200 

Misc. .......................................... SSD 4659 93,300 33,900 50,000 32,000 43,100 

(6) Total Costs Associated With the 

Coordinated Strategy 

The total hardware costs associated 

with the coordinated strategy were 

estimated using the number of new 

ships by ship type and engine type 

entering the fleet each year. Table VII– 

4 presents the total hardware costs to 

U.S.-flagged vessels associated with the 

coordinated strategy. These costs consist 

of the variable and fixed hardware costs 

associated with the Annex VI existing 

engine program, Tier 2 and Tier 3 

standards, and additional components 

that may be required to accommodate 

the use of lower sulfur fuel on both new 

and existing vessels. This table also 

presents the total estimated operational 

costs associated with the coordinated 

strategy. These costs consist of the 2 

percent fuel consumption penalty 

associated with Tier 2 (Annex VI Tier 

II), the use of urea on vessels equipped 

with SCR systems, and the differential 

cost of using lower sulfur fuel; these 

costs are incurred by both U.S.- and 

foreign-flagged vessels. The total 

estimated cost of the coordinated 

strategy is $3.41 billion in 2030. The 

total costs from 2010 through 2040 are 

estimated to be $42.9 billion at a 3 

percent discount rate or $22.1 at a 7 

percent discount rate. 

TABLE VII–4—TOTAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COORDINATED STRATEGY

[Thousands of $] 

Year 

Total hardware 

costs for existing engines 

Total new engine hardware 

costs 

Total vessel 

hardware 

costs 

Total operating costs Total costs associated with 

the coordinated strategy U.S. flag Foreign flag 

2010 ......................................................... $9,400 $319 $166 $0 $0 $485 

2011 ......................................................... 161,000 3,580 173 173 1,130 5,060 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44494 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII–4—TOTAL HARDWARE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COORDINATED STRATEGY— 

Continued 

[Thousands of $] 

Year 

Total hardware 

costs for existing engines 

Total new engine hardware 

costs 

Total vessel 

hardware 

costs 

Total operating costs Total costs associated with 

the coordinated strategy U.S. flag Foreign flag 

2012 ......................................................... 153,000 3,700 179 841 5,590 10,300 

2013 ......................................................... 145,000 3,830 186 32,400 213,000 249,000 

2014 ......................................................... 137,000 3,960 192 34,400 226,000 265,000 

2015 ......................................................... 131,000 4,100 11,100 180,000 1,190,000 1,390,000 

2016 ......................................................... 0 27,300 691 189,000 1,250,000 1,470,000 

2017 ......................................................... 0 28,500 717 199,000 1,330,000 1,560,000 

2018 ......................................................... 0 29,600 745 210,000 1,410,000 1,650,000 

2019 ......................................................... 0 30,700 773 221,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 

2020 ......................................................... 0 31,900 803 233,000 1,590,000 1,860,000 

2021 ......................................................... 0 33,200 834 246,000 1,680,000 1,960,000 

2022 ......................................................... 0 34,600 866 258,000 1,770,000 2,060,000 

2023 ......................................................... 0 35,900 899 272,000 1,880,000 2,190,000 

2024 ......................................................... 0 37,400 934 286,000 1,980,000 2,300,000 

2025 ......................................................... 0 38,800 970 300,000 2,090,000 2,430,000 

2026 ......................................................... 0 40,400 1,010 315,000 2,200,000 2,560,000 

2027 ......................................................... 0 42,100 1,050 330,000 2,310,000 2,680,000 

2028 ......................................................... 0 43,700 1,090 345,000 2,430,000 2,820,000 

2029 ......................................................... 0 45,500 1,130 362,000 2,550,000 2,960,000 

2030 ......................................................... 0 47,400 1,180 378,000 2,680,000 3,110,000 

2031 ......................................................... 0 49,300 1,220 395,000 2,810,000 3,260,000 

2032 ......................................................... 0 51,300 1,270 413,000 2,950,000 3,420,000 

2033 ......................................................... 0 53,400 1,320 431,000 3,080,000 3,570,000 

2034 ......................................................... 0 55,500 1,370 451,000 3,240,000 3,750,000 

2035 ......................................................... 0 57,900 1,430 471,000 3,390,000 3,920,000 

2036 ......................................................... 0 60,200 1,490 494,000 3,560,000 4,120,000 

2037 ......................................................... 0 62,800 1,540 517,000 3,740,000 4,320,000 

2038 ......................................................... 0 65,300 1,610 541,000 3,930,000 4,540,000 

2039 ......................................................... 0 68,000 1,670 566,000 4,110,000 4,750,000 

2040 ......................................................... 0 70,800 1,740 591,000 4,310,000 4,970,000 

NPV @ 3% ....................................... 677,000 663,000 26,500 5,260,000 36,900,000 42,900,000 

NPV @ 7% ....................................... 610,000 346,000 16,900 2,730,000 19,000,000 22,100,000 

C. Cost Effectiveness 

One tool that can be used to assess the 

value of the coordinated strategy is the 

engineering costs incurred per ton of 

emissions reduced. This analysis 

involves a comparison of our proposed 

program to other measures that have 

been or could be implemented. As 

summarized in this section, the 

coordinated strategy represents a highly 

cost effective mobile source control 

program for reducing NOX, PM and SOX

emissions. 

We have estimated the cost per ton 

based on the net present value of 3 

percent and 7 percent of all hardware 

costs incurred by U.S.-flagged vessels, 

all operational costs incurred by both 

U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels, and all 

emission reductions generated from the 

year 2010 through the year 2040. The 

baseline case for these estimated 

reductions is the existing set of engine 

standards for C3 marine diesel engines 

and fuel sulfur limits. Table VII–5 

shows the annual emissions reductions 

associated with the coordinated 

strategy; these annual tons are 

undiscounted. A description of the 

methodology used to estimate these 

annual reductions can be found in 

Section II of this preamble and Chapter 

3 of the draft RIA. 

TABLE VII–5—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COORDINATED STRATEGY (SHORT TONS) 

Calendar year 

Reductions (tons) 

NOX SOX PM 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 47,000 0 0 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 54,000 0 0 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 70,000 0 0 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 88,000 390,000 48,400 

2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 105,000 406,000 50,400 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 123,000 641,000 68,000 

2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 150,000 668,000 70,800 

2017 ............................................................................................................................................. 209,000 695,000 73,700 

2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 279,000 724,000 76,800 

2019 ............................................................................................................................................. 349,000 755,000 80,000 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................. 409,000 877,000 94,100 

2021 ............................................................................................................................................. 488,000 916,000 98,200 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44495 

142The $/ton numbers presented here vary from 

those presented in the ECA proposal due to the net 

present value of the annualized reductions being applied from 2015-2020, and the use of metric 

tonnes rather than of short tons. 

TABLE VII–5—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COORDINATED STRATEGY (SHORT TONS)— 

Continued 

Calendar year 

Reductions (tons) 

NOX SOX PM 

2022 ............................................................................................................................................. 547,000 954,000 102,000 

2023 ............................................................................................................................................. 634,000 995,000 107,000 

2024 ............................................................................................................................................. 714,000 1,040,000 111,000 

2025 ............................................................................................................................................. 790,000 1,080,000 116,000 

2026 ............................................................................................................................................. 866,000 1,130,000 121,000 

2027 ............................................................................................................................................. 938,000 1,170,000 126,000 

2028 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,020,000 1,220,000 131,000 

2029 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,100,000 1,280,000 137,000 

2030 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,180,000 1,330,000 143,000 

2031 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,260,000 1,390,000 149,000 

2032 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,330,000 1,450,000 155,000 

2033 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,410,000 1,510,000 162,000 

2034 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 1,580,000 169,000 

2035 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,590,000 1,650,000 177,000 

2036 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,690,000 1,720,000 184,000 

2037 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,810,000 1,800,000 193,000 

2038 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,920,000 1,880,000 201,000 

2039 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,020,000 1,970,000 210,000 

2040 ............................................................................................................................................. 2,130,000 2,050,000 220,000 

NPV at 3% ............................................................................................................................ 14,400,000 19,100,000 2,100,000 

NPV at 7% ............................................................................................................................ 6,920,000 10,100,000 1,090,000 

The net estimated reductions by 

pollutant, using a net present value of 

3 percent from 2010 through 2040 are 

14.4 million tons of NOX, 19.1 million 

tons of SOX, and 2.1 million tons of PM 

(6.9 million, 10.1 million, and 1.1 

million tons of NOX, SOX, and PM, 

respectively, at a net present value of 7 

percent over the same period.) 

Using the above cost and emission 

reduction estimates, we estimated the 

lifetime (2010 through 2040) cost per 

ton of pollutant reduced. For this 

analysis, all of the hardware costs 

associated with the Annex VI existing 

engine program and Tier 2 and Tier 3 

NOX standards as well as the 

operational costs associated with the 

global Tier II and Tier III standards were 

attributed to NOX reductions. The costs 

associated with lower sulfur fuel 

operational costs as applied to all 

vessels visiting U.S. ports and the 

hardware costs associated with 

accommodating the use of lower sulfur 

fuel on U.S.-flagged vessels were 

associated with SOX and PM reductions. 

In this analysis, half of the costs 

associated with the use of lower sulfur 

fuel were allocated to PM reductions 

and half to SOX reductions, because the 

costs incurred to reduce SOX emissions 

directly reduce emissions of PM as well. 

Using this allocation of costs and the 

emission reductions shown in Table 

VII–5, we can estimate the lifetime cost 

per ton reduced associated with each 

pollutant. These results are shown in 

Table VII–6. Using a net present value 

of 3 percent, the discounted lifetime 

cost per ton of pollutant reduced is $510 

for NOX, $930 for SOX, and $7,950 for 

PM ($500, $920, and $7,850 per ton of 

NOX, SOX, and PM, respectively, at a 

net present value of 7 percent.) As 

shown in Table VII–6, these estimated 

discounted lifetime costs are similar to 

the annual long-term (2030) cost per ton 

of pollutant reduced. 

TABLE VII–6 COORDINATED STRATEGY ESTIMATED AGGREGATE DISCOUNTED LIFETIME COST PER TON (2010–2040) AND

LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON (2030) 142

Pollutant 

2010 thru 2040 

discounted lifetime cost per ton 

at 3% 

2010 thru 2040 

discounted lifetime cost per ton 

at 7% 

Long-term cost 

per ton (for 

2030) 

NOx .................................................................................................................................. $510 $500 $520 

SOx .................................................................................................................................. 930 920 940 

PM .................................................................................................................................... 7,950 7,850 8,760 

Note: These costs are in 2006 U.S. dollars. 

These results for the coordinated 

strategy compare favorably to other air 

emissions control programs. Table VII– 

7 compares the coordinated strategy to 

other air programs. This comparison 

shows that the coordinated strategy will 

provide a cost-effective strategy for 

generating substantial NOX, SOX, and 

PM reductions from ocean-going 

vessels. The results presented in Table 

VII–7 are lifetime costs per ton 

discounted at a net present value of 3 

percent, with the exception of the 

stationary source program and 

locomotive/marine retrofits, for which 

annualized costs are presented. While 

results at a net present value of 7 

percent are not presented, the results 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44496 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

143The costs totals reported in this NPRM are 

slightly different than those reported in the ECA 

proposal. This is because the ECA proposal did not 

include costs associated with the Annex VI existing 

engine program, Tier II, or the costs associated with 

existing vessel modifications that may be required 

to accommodate the use of lower sulfur fuel. 

Further, the cost totals presented in the ECA 

package included Canadian cost estimates. 

would be similar. Specifically, the 

coordinated strategy falls within the 

range of values for other recent 

programs. 

TABLE VII–7—ESTIMATED $/TON FOR THE COORDINATED STRATEGY COMPARED TO PREVIOUS MOBILE SOURCE

PROGRAMS FOR NOX, SOX, AND PM10

Source category A Implementation 

date NOX cost/ton SOX cost/ton PM10 cost/ton 

Coordinated Strategy NPRM, 2009 ................................................. 2011 510 930 7,950 

Nonroad Small Spark-Ignition Engines ........................................... 2010 B,C 330–1,200 ............................ ............................

73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008 

Stationary Diesel (CI) Engines ........................................................ 2006 580–20,000 ............................ 3,500–42,000 

71 FR 39154, July 11, 2006 

Locomotives and C1/C2 Marine (Both New and Retrofits) ............. 2015 B 730 ............................ D 8,400 (New) E 45,000 

(Retrofit) 

73 FR 25097, May 6, 2008 

Heavy Duty Nonroad Diesel Engines .............................................. 2015 B 1,100 780 13,000 

69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004 

Heavy Duty Onroad Diesel Engines ................................................ 2010 B 2,200 5,800 14,000 

66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001 

Notes: 

A Table presents aggregate program-wide cost/ton over 30 years, discounted at a 3 percent NPV, except for Stationary CI Engines and Locomotive/Marine retrofits, for which annualized costs of control for individual sources are presented. All figures are in 2006 U.S. dollars per short 

ton. B Includes NOX plus non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). NMHC are also ozone precursors, thus some rules set combined NOX + NMHC 

emissions standards. NMHC are a small fraction of NOX so aggregate cost/ton comparisons are still reasonable. C Low end of range represents costs for marine engines with credit for fuel savings, high end of range represents costs for other nonroad SI 

engines without credit for fuel savings. 

D. Economic Impact Analysis 

This section contains our analysis of 

the expected economic impacts of our 

coordinated strategy on the markets for 

Category 3 marine diesel engines, oceangoing vessels, and the U.S. marine 

transportation service sector. We briefly 

describe our methodology and present 

our estimated expected economic 

impacts. 

As described below and in more 

detail in the draft RIA, our economic 

impact analysis uses a competitive 

model approach for all affected markets. 

We request comment on this approach, 

or whether an alternative modeling 

approach should be used for these 

markets. 

The total estimated social costs of the 

coordinated strategy in 2030 are 

equivalent to the estimated compliance 

costs of the coordinated strategy, at 

approximately $3.1 billion.143 These 

costs are expected to accrue initially to 

the owners and operators of affected 

vessels. These owners and operators are 

expected to pass their increased costs on 

to the entities that purchase 

international marine transportation 

services, in the form of higher freight 

rates. Ultimately, these costs will be 

borne by the final consumers of goods 

transported by ocean-going vessels in 

the form of slightly higher prices for 

those goods. 

We estimate that compliance with the 

coordinated strategy would increase the 

price of a new vessel by 0.5 to 2 percent. 

The impact of the coordinated strategy, 

including the ECA controls, on the price 

of ocean marine transportation services 

would vary, depending on the route and 

the amount of time spent in the 

proposed U.S. ECA. For example, we 

estimate that the cost of operating a ship 

in liner service between Singapore, 

Seattle, and Los Angeles/Long Beach, 

which includes about 1,700 nm of 

operation in the proposed ECA, would 

increase by about 3 percent. For a 

container ship, this represents a price 

increase of about $18 per container, 

assuming the total increase in operating 

costs is passed on to the purchaser of 

the marine transportation services. This 

would be about a 3 percent price 

increase. The per passenger price of a 

seven-day Alaska cruise operating 

entirely within the ECA is expected to 

increase by about $7 per day. For ships 

that spend less time in the ECA, the 

expected increase in total operating 

costs, and therefore the impacts on 

freight prices, would be smaller. 

It should be noted that this economic 

analysis holds all other aspects of the 

market constant except for the elements 

of the coordinated strategy. It does not 

attempt to predict future market 

equilibrium conditions, particularly 

with respect to how excess capacity in 

today’s market due to the current 

economic downturn will be absorbed. 

This approach is appropriate because 

the goal of an economic impact analysis 

is to explore the impacts of a specific 

program; allowing changes in other 

market conditions would confuse the 

impacts due to the proposed regulatory 

program. 

The remainder of this section 

provides detailed information on the 

methodology we used to estimate these 

economic impacts and the results of our 

analysis. 

(1) What Is the Purpose of an Economic 

Impact Analysis? 

In general, the purpose of an 

Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) is to 

provide information about the potential 

economic consequences of a regulatory 

action, such as the proposed 

coordinated strategy to reduce 

emissions from ocean-going vessels. 

Such an analysis consists of estimating 

the social costs of a regulatory program 

and the distribution of these costs across 

stakeholders. 

In an economic impact analysis, 

social costs are the value of the goods 

and services lost by society resulting 

from (a) the use of resources to comply 

with and implement a regulation and (b) 

reductions in output. There are two 

parts to the analysis. 

In the market analysis, we estimate 

how prices and quantities of goods 

directly affected by the emission control 

program can be expected to change once 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44497 

144Stopford describes these markets as 

competitive. See Stopford, Martin. Maritime 

Economics, 3rd Edition (Routledge, 2009), 

Chapter 4. 

145Tirole, Jean. The Theory of Industrial 

Organization (1989). MIT Press. See pages 223–224. 

the program goes into effect. In the 

economic welfare analysis, we look at 

the total social costs associated with the 

program and their distribution across 

key stakeholders. 

(2) How Did We Estimate the Economic 

Impacts of the Coordinated Strategy? 

Our analysis of the economic impacts 

of the coordinated strategy is based on 

the application of basic microeconomic 

theory. We use a competitive market 

model approach in which the 

interaction between supply and demand 

determines equilibrium market prices 

and quantities. For markets in which 

there are many producers, such as the 

vessel building and transportation 

services markets, this approach is 

reasonable.144 For the Category 3 engine 

market, the market structure and 

therefore the choice of model is more 

complicated. This market consists of a 

small number of manufacturers (2 

companies comprising about 60 percent 

of the market, with two others having a 

notable share), which suggests that an 

oligopolistic modeling approach may be 

more appropriate. In markets with a 

small number of producers, it is not 

uncommon for manufacturers to 

exercise market power to obtain prices 

above the competitive market clearing 

price, thereby securing greater profits. In 

such markets, market prices would 

increase more than the compliance costs 

of the regulatory program. However, an 

oligopoly market structure does not 

necessarily mean that the firms behave 

non-competitively. According to the 

Bertrand competition model, price 

competition among even a few 

manufacturers achieves socially optimal 

results similar to a competitive 

market.145 The Bertrand competition 

model relies on price competition 

between the firms; price competition 

among the firms may be reduced when 

the manufacturers face sharply rising 

marginal costs, when they compete 

repeatedly, or when their products are 

differentiated. We request comment on 

whether Category 3 engine 

manufacturers behave competitively, 

competing on price, or whether some 

other modeling approach should be 

used for this market. 

In a competitive structure model, we 

use the relationships between supply 

and demand to simulate how markets 

can be expected to respond to increases 

in production costs that occur as a result 

of the new emission control program. 

We use the laws of supply and demand 

to construct a model to estimate the 

social costs of the program and identify 

how those costs will be shared across 

the markets and, thus, across 

stakeholders. The relevant concepts are 

summarized below and are presented in 

greater detail in Chapter 7 of the draft 

RIA. 

Before the implementation of a 

control program, a market is assumed to 

be in equilibrium, with producers 

producing the amount of a good that 

consumers desire to purchase at the 

market price. The implementation of a 

control program results in an increase in 

production costs by the amount of the 

compliance costs. This generates a 

‘‘shock’’ to the initial equilibrium 

market conditions (a change in supply). 

Producers of affected products will try 

to pass some or all of the increased 

production costs on to the consumers of 

these goods through price increases, 

without changing the quantity 

produced. In response to the price 

increases, consumers will decrease the 

quantity they buy of the affected good 

(a change in the quantity demanded). 

This creates surplus production at the 

new price. Producers will react to the 

decrease in quantity demanded by 

reducing the quantity they produce, and 

they will be willing to sell the 

remaining production at a lower price 

that does not cover the full amount of 

the compliance costs. Consumers will 

then react to this new price. These 

interactions continue until the surplus 

is removed and a new market 

equilibrium price and quantity 

combination is achieved. 

The amount of the compliance costs 

that will be borne by stakeholders is 

ultimately limited by the price 

sensitivity of consumers and producers 

in the relevant markets, represented by 

the price elasticities of demand and 

supply for each market. An ‘‘inelastic’’ 

price elasticity (less than one) means 

that supply or demand is not very 

responsive to price changes (a one 

percent change in price leads to less 

than one percent change in quantity). 

An ‘‘elastic’’ price elasticity (more than 

one) means that supply or demand is 

sensitive to price changes (a one percent 

change in price leads to more than one 

percent change in quantity). A price 

elasticity of one is unit elastic, meaning 

there is a one-to-one correspondence 

between a percent change in price and 

percent change in quantity. 

On the production side, price 

elasticity of supply depends on the time 

available to adjust production in 

response to a change in price, how easy 

it is to store goods, and the cost of 

increasing (or decreasing) output. In this 

analysis, we assume the supply for 

engines, vessels, and marine 

transportation services is elastic: an 

increase in the market price of an 

engine, vessel or freight rates will lead 

producers to want to produce more, 

while a decrease will lead them to 

produce less (this is the classic upwardsloping supply curve). It would be 

difficult to estimate the slope of the 

supply curve for each of these markets 

given the global nature of the sector. 

However, it is reasonable to assume that 

the supply elasticity for the ocean 

marine transportation services market is 

likely to be greater than one. This is 

because output can more easily be 

adjusted due to a change in price. For 

the same reason, the supply elasticity 

for the new Category 3 engine market is 

also likely to be greater than one, 

especially since these engines are often 

used in other land-based industries, 

notably in power plants. The supply 

elasticity for the vessel construction 

market, on the other hand, may be less 

than or equal to one depending on the 

vessel type, since it may be harder to 

adjust production and/or store output if 

the price drops, or rapidly increase 

production if the price increases. 

Because of the nature of this industry, 

it would not be possible to easily switch 

production to other goods, or to stop or 

start production of new vessels. 

On the consumption side, we assume 

that the demand for engines is a 

function of the demand for vessels, 

which is a function of the demand for 

international shipping (demand for 

engines and vessels is derived from the 

demand for marine transportation 

services). This makes intuitive sense: 

Category 3 engine and ocean-going 

vessel manufacturers would not be 

expected to build an engine or vessel 

unless there is a purchaser, and 

purchasers will want a new vessel/ 

engine only if there is a need for one to 

supply marine transportation services. 

Deriving the price elasticity of demand 

for the vessel and engine markets from 

the international shipping market is an 

important feature of this analysis 

because it provides a link between the 

product markets. 

In this analysis, the price elasticity of 

demand for marine transportation 

services, and therefore for vessels and 

Category 3 engines, is nearly perfectly 

inelastic. This stems from the fact that 

for most goods, there are no reasonable 

alternative shipping modes. In most 

cases, transportation by rail or truck is 

not feasible, and transportation by 

aircraft is too expensive. Approximately 

90 percent of world trade by tonnage is 

moved by ship, and ships provide the 

most efficient method to transport these 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44498 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

146Harrould-Koleib, Ellycia. Shipping Impacts on 

Climate: A Source with Solutions. Oceana, July 

2008. A copy of this report can be found at http:// 

www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/

Climate_Change/Oceana_Shipping_Report.pdf 

147Stopford, Martin. Maritime Economics, 3rd 

Edition. Routledge, 2009. p. 163. 

148The MARPOL amendments include Tier II and 

Tier III NOX standards that apply to all vessels, 

including foreign vessels. While the analysis does 

not include hardware costs for the MARPOL Tier 

II and Tier III standards for foreign vessels because 

foreign vessels operate anywhere in the world, it is 

appropriate to include the operating costs for these 

foreign vessels while they are operating in our 

inventory modeling domain. This is because foreign 

vessels complying with the Tier II and Tier III 

standards will have a direct beneficial impact on 

U.S. air quality, and if we consider the benefits of 

these standards we should also consider their costs. 

goods on a tonne-mile basis.146 Stopford 

notes that ‘‘shippers need the cargo and, 

until they have time to make alternative 

arrangements, must ship it regardless of 

cost * * * The fact that freight 

generally accounts for only a small 

portion of material costs reinforces this 

argument.’’ 147 A nearly perfectly 

inelastic price elasticity of demand for 

marine transportation services means 

that virtually all of the compliance costs 

can be expected to be passed on to the 

consumers of marine transportation 

services, with no change in output for 

engine producers, ship builders, or 

owners and operators of ships engaged 

in international trade. 

The economic impacts of the 

coordinated strategy presented in this 

section rely on the estimated 

engineering compliance costs described 

in Sections VII.A (fuels) and VII.B 

(engines) above. These costs include 

hardware costs for new U.S. vessels to 

comply with the Tier 2 and Tier 3 

engine standards, and for existing U.S. 

vessels to comply with the MARPOL 

Annex VI requirements for existing 

engines. There are also hardware costs 

for fuel switching equipment on new 

and existing U.S. vessels to comply with 

the 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur limit; the cost 

analysis assumes that 32 percent of all 

vessels require fuel switching 

equipment to be added (new vessels) or 

retrofit (existing vessels). Also included 

are expected increases in operating costs 

for U.S. and foreign vessels operating in 

the inventory modeling domain, 

including the proposed ECA. These 

increased operating costs include 

changes in fuel consumption rates, 

increases in fuel costs, and the use of 

urea for engines equipped with SCR.148

(3) What Are the Estimated Market 

Impacts of the Coordinated Strategy? 

(a) What Are the Estimated Engine and 

Vessel Market Impacts of the 

Coordinated Strategy? 

The estimated market impacts for 

engines and vessels are based on the 

variable costs associated with the engine 

and vessel compliance programs; fixed 

costs are not included in the market 

analysis. This is appropriate because in 

a competitive market the industry 

supply curve is generally based on the 

market’s marginal cost curve; fixed costs 

do not influence production decisions at 

the margin. Therefore, the market 

analysis for a competitive market is 

based on variable costs only. 

The assumption of nearly perfectly 

inelastic demand for marine 

transportation services means that the 

quantity of these services purchased is 

not expected to change as a result of 

costs of complying with the ECA 

requirements. As a result, the demand 

for vessels and engines would also not 

change compared to the no-control 

scenario, and the quantities produced 

would remain the same. 

The assumption of nearly perfectly 

inelastic demand for marine 

transportation services also means the 

price impacts of the coordinated 

strategy on new engines and vessels 

would be equivalent to the variable 

engineering compliance costs. Estimated 

price impacts for a sample of enginevessel combinations are set out in Table 

VII–8 for medium speed engines, and 

Table VII–9 for slow speed engines. 

These are the estimated price impacts 

associated with the Tier 3 engine 

standards on a vessel that will switch 

fuels to comply with the fuel sulfur 

requirements in the ECA. Because the 

standards do not phase in, the estimated 

price impacts are the same for all years, 

beginning in 2016. 

TABLE VII—8 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS—MEDIUM SPEED TIER 3 ENGINES AND VESSELS

[$2006] a

Ship type Average propulsion power 

New vessel 

engine price 

impact (new tier 

3 engine price 

impact) b

New vessel fuel 

switching equipment price 

impact c

New vessel total 

price impact 

Auto Carrier ..................................................................................... 9,600 $573,200 $42,300 $615,500 

Bulk Carrier ...................................................................................... 6,400 483,500 36,900 520,400 

Container ......................................................................................... 13,900 687,800 49,200 736,000

General Cargo ................................................................................. 5,200 450,300 34,900 475,200 

Passenger ........................................................................................ 23,800 952,500 65,400 1,107,900 

Reefer .............................................................................................. 7,400 511,000 38,500 549,500 

RoRo ................................................................................................ 8,600 543,800 40,500 584,300 

Tanker .............................................................................................. 6,700 492,800 37,400 530,200 

Misc. ................................................................................................. 9,400 566,800 41,900 608,700 

Notes: 

aThe new vessel engine price impacts listed here do not include a per engine cost of $10,000 for engines installed on U.S. vessels to comply 

with the proposed production testing requirement (§ 1042.302) b Medium speed engine price impacts are estimated from the cost information presented in Chapter 5 using the following formula: (10%*($/ 

SHIP_MECH→CR))+(30%*($/SHIP_ELEC→CR))+(T3 ENGINE MODS)+(T3SCR)) cAssumes 32 percent of new vessels would require the fuel switching equipment. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44499 

TABLE VII—9 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS—SLOW SPEED TIER 3 ENGINES AND VESSELS

[$2006] a

Ship type 

Average 

Propulsion 

Power 

New vessel 

engine price 

impact (new tier 

3 engine price 

impact) b

New vessel fuel 

switching equipment price 

impact c

New vessel total 

price impact 

Auto Carrier ..................................................................................... 11,300 $825,000 $48,000 $873,000 

Bulk Carrier ...................................................................................... 8,400 672,600 42,700 715,300 

Container ......................................................................................... 27,500 1,533,100 63,900 1,597,000 

General Cargo ................................................................................. 7,700 632,900 41,000 673,900 

Passenger ........................................................................................ 23,600 1,385,300 61,200 1,446,500 

Reefer .............................................................................................. 10,400 781,000 46,500 827,500 

RoRo ................................................................................................ 15,700 1,042,100 53,900 1,096,000 

Tanker .............................................................................................. 9,800 744,200 45,300 789,500 

Misc. ................................................................................................. 4,700 453,600 32,000 485,600 

Notes: 

aThe new vessel engine price impacts listed here do not include a per engine cost of $10,000 for engines installed on U.S. vessels to comply 

with the proposed production testing requirement (§ 1042.302) bSlow speed engine price impacts are estimated from the cost information presented in Chapter 5 using the following formula: (5%*($/ 

SHIP_MECH→CR))+(15%*($/SHIP_ELEC→CR))+(T3 ENGINE MODS)+(T3 SCR)) cAssumes 32 percent of new vessels would require the fuel switching equipment. 

The estimated price impacts for Tier 

2 vessels would be substantially lower, 

given the technology that will be used 

to meet the Tier 2 standards is much 

less expensive. The cost of complying 

with the Tier 2 standards ranges from 

about $56,000 to $100,000 for a medium 

speed engine, and from about $130,000 

to $250,000 for a slow speed engine. 

Again, because the standards do not 

phase in, the estimated price impacts 

are the same for all years the Tier 2 

standards are required, 2011 through 

2015. 

These estimated price impacts for Tier 

2 and Tier 3 vessels are small when 

compared to the price of a new vessel. 

A selection of new vessel prices is 

provided in Table VII–10; these range 

from about $40 million to $480 million. 

The program price increases range from 

about $600,000 to $1.5 million. A price 

increase of $600,000 to comply with the 

Tier 3 standards and fuel switching 

requirements would be an increase of 

approximately 2 percent for a $40 

million vessel. The largest vessel price 

increase noted above for a Tier 3 

passenger vessel is about $1.5 million; 

this is a price increase of less than 1 

percent for a $478 million passenger 

vessel. Independent of the nearlyperfect inelasticity of demand, price 

increases of this magnitude would be 

expected to have little, if any, effect on 

the sales of new vessels, all other 

economic conditions held constant. 

TABLE VII–10—NEWBUILD VESSEL PRICE BY SHIP TYPE AND SIZE, SELECTED VESSELS

[Millions, $2008] 

Vessel type Vessel size category Size range (mean) (DWT) Newbuild 

Bulk carrier .............................. Handy ..................................... 10,095–39,990 (27,593) $56.00 

Handymax .............................. 40,009–54,881 (47,616) 79.00 

Panamax ................................ 55,000–78,932 (69,691) 97.00 

Capesize ................................. 80,000–364,767 (157,804) 175.00 

Container ................................ Feeder .................................... 1,000–13,966 (9,053) 38.00 

Intermediate ............................ 14,003–36,937 (24,775) 70.00 

Panamax ................................ 37,042–54,700 (45,104) 130.00 

Post Panamax ........................ 55,238–84,900 (67,216) 165.00 

Gas carrier .............................. Midsize ................................... 1,001–34,800 (7,048) 79.70 

LGC ........................................ 35,760–59,421 (50,796) 37.50 

VLGC ...................................... 62,510–122,079 (77,898) 207.70 

General cargo ......................... Coastal Small ......................... 1,000–9,999 (3,789) 33.00 

Coastal Large ......................... 10,000–24,912 (15,673) 43.00 

Handy ..................................... 25,082–37,865 (29,869) 52.00 

Panamax ................................ 41,600–49,370 (44,511) 58.00 

Passenger ............................... All ............................................ 1,000–19,189 (6,010) 478.40 

Reefer ..................................... All ............................................ 1,000–19,126 (6,561) 17.30 

Ro-Ro ...................................... All ............................................ 1,000–19,126 (7,819) 41.20 

Tanker ..................................... Coastal ................................... 1,000–23,853 (7,118) 20.80 

Handymax .............................. 25,000–39,999 (34,422) 59.00 

Panamax ................................ 40,000–75,992 (52,300) 63.00 

AFRAmax ............................... 76,000–117,153 (103,112) 77.00 

Suezmax ................................. 121,109–167,294 (153,445) 95.00 

VLCC ...................................... 180,377–319,994 (294,475) 154.00 

Sources: Lloyd’s Shipping Economist (2008), Informa (2008), Lloyd’s Sea-Web (2008). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44500 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

149Stopford, Martin, Maritime Economics, 3rd 

Edition. Routledge, 2009. Page 519. 

150The costs totals reported in this NPRM are 

slightly different than those reported in the ECA 

proposal. This is because the ECA proposal did not 

include costs associated with the Annex VI existing 

engine program, Tier II, or the costs associated with 

existing vessel modifications that may be required 

to accommodate the use of lower sulfur fuel. 

Further, the cost totals presented in the ECA 

package included Canadian cost estimates. 151Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division, U.S. 

Waterborne Foreign Trade by U.S. Custom Districts, 

as reported by the Maritime Administration at 

(b) What Are the Estimated Fuel Market 

Impacts of the Coordinated Strategy? 

The market impacts for the fuel 

markets were estimated through the 

modeling performed to estimate the fuel 

compliance costs for the coordinated 

strategy. In the WORLD model, the total 

quantity of fuel used is held constant, 

which is consistent with the assumption 

that the demand for international 

shipping transportation would not be 

expected to change due to the lack of 

transportation alternatives. 

The expected price impacts of the 

coordinated strategy are set out in Table 

VII–11. Note that on a mass basis, less 

distillate than residual fuel is needed to 

go the same distance (5 percent less). 

The prices in Table VII–11 are adjusted 

for this impact. 

Table VII–11 shows that the 

coordinated strategy is expected to 

result in a small increase in the price of 

marine distillate fuel, about 1.3 percent. 

The price of residual fuel is expected to 

decrease slightly, by less than one 

percent, due to a reduction in demand 

for that fuel. 

TABLE VII–11—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS—FUEL MARKETS

Fuel Units Baseline price Control price Adjusted for 

energy density % change 

Distillate ............................................. $/tonne ............................................. 462 468 N/A +1.3 

Residual ............................................ $/tonne ............................................. 322 321 N/A ¥0.3 

Fuel Switching ................................... $/tonne ............................................. 322 468 444 +38.9 

Because of the need to shift from 

residual fuel to distillate fuel in the 

ECA, ship owners are expected to see an 

increase in their total cost of fuel. This 

increase is because distillate fuel is 

more expensive than residual fuel. 

Factoring in the higher energy content 

of distillate fuel relative to residual fuel, 

the fuel cost increase would be about 39 

percent. 

(c) What Are the Estimated Marine 

Transportation Market Impacts of the 

Coordinated Strategy? 

We used the above information to 

estimate the impacts on the prices of 

marine transportation services. This 

analysis, which is presented in Chapter 

7 of the draft RIA, is limited to the 

impacts of increases in operating costs 

due to the fuel and emission 

requirements of the coordinated 

strategy. Operating costs would increase 

due to the increase in the price of fuel, 

the need to switch to fuel with a sulfur 

content not to exceed 1,000 ppm while 

operating in the ECA, and due to the 

need to dose the aftertreatment system 

with urea to meet the Tier 3 standards. 

Table VII–12 summarizes these price 

impacts for selected transportation 

markets. Table VII–12 also lists the 

vessel and engine parameters that were 

used in the calculations. 

TABLE VII–12—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF OPERATIONAL FUEL/UREA COST INCREASES

Vessel type Vessel and engine parameters Operational price increases 

Container—North Pacific Circle Route ......................... 36,540 kW, 50,814 DWT .............................................. $17.53/TEU. 

Bulk Carrier—North Pacific Circle Route ..................... 3,825 kW, 16,600 DWT ................................................ $0.56/tonne. 

Cruise Liner—(Alaska) .................................................. 31,500 kW, 226,000 DWT, 1,886 passengers. ............ $6.60/per passenger per day 

This information suggests that the 

increase in marine transportation 

service prices would be small, both 

absolutely and when compared to the 

price charged by the ship owner per 

unit transported. For example, Stopford 

notes that the price of transporting a 20 

foot container between the UK and 

Canada is estimated to be about $1,500; 

of that, $700 is the cost of the ocean 

freight; the rest is for port, terminal, and 

other charges.149 An increase of about 

$18 represents an increase of less than 

3 percent of ocean freight cost, and 

about one percent of transportation cost. 

Similarly, the price of a 7-day Alaska 

cruise varies from $100 to $400 per 

night or more. In that case, this price 

increase would range from 1.5 percent 

to about 6 percent. 

(4) What Are the Estimated Social Costs 

of the Coordinated Strategy and How 

Are They Expected To Be Distributed 

Across Stakeholders? 

The total social costs of the 

coordinated strategy are based on both 

fixed and variable costs. This is because 

fixed costs are a cost to society: they 

displace other product development 

activities that may improve the quality 

or performance of engines and vessels. 

In this economic impact analysis, fixed 

costs are accounted for in the year in 

which they occur, with the fixed costs 

associated with the Tier 2 engine 

standards accounted for in 2010 and the 

fixed costs associated with the Tier 3 

engine standards and the ECA controls 

accounted for in the five-year period 

beginning prior to their effective dates. 

The social costs of the coordinated 

strategy are estimated to be the same as 

the total engineering compliance costs. 

These costs for all years are presented 

in Table VII–4. For 2030, the social costs 

are estimated to be about $3.1 billion.150

For the reasons described above and 

explained more fully in the draft RIA, 

these costs are expected to be borne 

fully by consumers of marine 

transportation services. 

These social costs are small when 

compared to the total value of U.S. 

waterborne foreign trade. In 2007, 

waterborne trade for government and 

non-government shipments by vessel 

into and out of U.S. foreign trade zones, 

the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico was about $1.4 trillion. 

Of that, about $1 trillion was for 

imports.151

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44501 

http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/

data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm, 

accessed April 9, 2009. 

152U.S. Census Bureau, Industry Statistics 

Sampler, NAICS 48311, Deep sea, coastal, and Great 

Lakes transportation, at http://www.census.gov/

econ/census02/data/industry/E48311.HTM, 

assessed on April 9, 2009. 

If only U.S. vessels are considered, 

the social costs of the coordinated 

strategy in 2030 would be about $427.5 

million. Again, these social costs are 

small when compared to the annual 

revenue for this sector. In 2002, the 

annual revenue for this sector was about 

$19.8 billion.152

(5) Alternative Analysis 

The above analysis is based on the 

assumption of near-perfectly inelastic 

demand for ocean marine transportation 

services. In this section, we discuss the 

implications of relaxing this assumption 

to consider the impacts of the 

coordinated strategy if consumers of 

marine transportation services were able 

to react to an increase in prices by 

reducing their demand for these 

services. 

The marine transportation services 

market is a global market, which makes 

it complicated to estimate the price 

sensitivity of demand. In addition, that 

sensitivity would likely vary depending 

on the types of goods transported and 

the type of vessel used. For example, the 

demand elasticity for bulk cargo 

transportation services would likely 

vary depending on the type of bulk (e.g., 

food, oil, electronic goods) and the type 

of vessel (bulk/tramp or liner). Instead 

of estimating these price elasticities, this 

alternative analysis relies on the price 

elasticities we developed for our 2008 

rulemaking that set technology-forcing 

standards for Category 1 and Category 2 

engines (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008). 

Although these price elasticities of 

demand and supply were developed 

using data for United States markets 

only, they reflect behavioral reactions to 

price changes if alternative modes of 

transportation were available. The 

values used for the behavioral 

parameters for the Category 1 and 2 

markets are provided in Table VII–13. 

TABLE VII–13—BEHAVIORAL PARAMETERS USED IN LOCOMOTIVE/MARINE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL

Sector Market Demand 

elasticity Source Supply elasticity Source 

Marine ........................ Marine Transportation 

Services.

¥0.5 (inelastic) ......... Literature Estimate .... 0.6 (inelastic) ............ Literature 

Estimate. 

Commercial Vessels a Derived ...................... N/A ............................ 2.3 (elastic) ............... Econometric 

Estimate. 

Engines ..................... Derived ...................... N/A ............................ 3.8 (elastic) ............... Econometric

Estimate. 

Notes: 

a Commercial vessels include tug/tow/pushboats, ferries, cargo vessels, crew/supply boats, and other commercial vessels. 

The alternative price elasticity of 

demand for marine transportation 

services is inelastic, at ¥0.5. This 

means a one percent increase in price 

will result in a 0.5 percent decrease in 

demand. This inelastic demand 

elasticity will yield inelastic demand 

elasticities for both engines and vessels. 

The estimates of the price elasticity of 

supply are elastic, consistent with the 

primary analysis described above. 

Rather than create a computer model 

to estimate the economic impacts of the 

coordinated strategy using this revised 

set of assumptions, we examine their 

impact qualitatively. In general, relaxing 

the condition of nearly perfectly 

inelastic demand elasticity would result 

in the compliance costs of the 

coordinated strategy being shared by 

consumers and suppliers. In the engine 

and vessel markets, the share borne by 

producers would nevertheless be 

expected to be small, given the elastic 

supply elasticity compared to the 

inelastic demand elasticity. Because 

suppliers would bear part of the 

compliance costs, the price increase for 

engines and vessels would be smaller 

than the per-unit engineering 

compliance costs. In the marine 

transportation market, the price impacts 

would be shared more equally between 

producers (vessel owners) and 

consumers (firms that purchase marine 

transportation services), due to the 

nearly identical price elasticity of 

supply (0.6) and demand (¥0.5). 

However, given the relatively small per 

unit engineering costs, the total impacts 

on prices and quantities in these 

markets would still be expected to be 

modest. 

In addition, there would be a small 

change in demand since consumers 

would react to an increase in price by 

reducing their consumption of marine 

transportation services. Again, because 

the relative price impact is small, the 

impact on quantity would also be small. 

The distribution of compliance costs 

from our earlier rule are presented in 

Table VII–14. While the emission 

control requirements and the 

compliance cost structure of the 

coordinated strategy are somewhat 

different, these results give an idea of 

how costs would be shared if the 

assumption of nearly perfectly inelastic 

price elasticity of demand for the 

transportation services market in the 

ocean-going marine sector were relaxed. 

TABLE VII–14—DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL COSTS AMONG STAKEHOLDER GROUPS—CATEGORY 1 AND CATEGORY 2 

ENGINE PROGRAM

Stakeholder Group 2020 

(percent) 

2030 

(percent) 

Marine engine producers ......................................................................................................................................... 0.8 0.5 

Marine vessel producers ......................................................................................................................................... 10.7 3.8 

Recreational and fishing vessel consumers ............................................................................................................ 8.4 4.1 

Marine transportation service providers .................................................................................................................. 36.4 41.5 

Marine transportation service consumers ............................................................................................................... 43.8 50.0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44502 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

153Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. 

Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. (2002). 

Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and 

Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution. Journal of the American Medical 

Association, 287, 1132–1141. 

154Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short-term 

mortality in 95 US urban communities, 1987–2000. 

Journal of the American Medical Association, 

292(19), 2372–2378. 

155Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. 

Dockery. (2006). Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of 

Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173, 667– 

672. 

156Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. 

(2005). Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric 

bayes metaregression analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4), 

458–68. 

157U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 

and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at 

http: //www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

158U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). 

Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved 

March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

ria.html. 

159 Information on BenMAP, including 

downloads of the software, can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html. 

157U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 

and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at 

http: //www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

TABLE VII–14—DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL COSTS AMONG STAKEHOLDER GROUPS—CATEGORY 1 AND CATEGORY 2 

ENGINE PROGRAM—Continued 

Stakeholder Group 2020 

(percent) 

2030 

(percent) 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 100.0 100.0 

VIII. Benefits 

This section presents our analysis of 

the health and environmental benefits 

that are estimated to occur as a result of 

EPA’s coordinated strategy to address 

emissions from Category 3 engines and 

ocean-going vessels throughout the 

period from initial implementation 

through 2030. We provide estimated 

benefits for the entire coordinated 

strategy, including the Annex VI Tier 2 

NOX requirements and the ECA controls 

that will be mandatory for U.S. and 

foreign vessels through the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships. However, 

unlike the cost analysis, this benefits 

analysis does not allocate benefits 

between the components of the program 

(the requirements in this rule and the 

requirements that would apply through 

MARPOL Annex VI and ECA 

implementation). This is because the 

benefits of the coordinated strategy will 

be fully realized only when the U.S. 

ECA is in place and both U.S. and 

foreign vessel are required to use lower 

sulfur fuel and operate their Tier 3 NOX

controls while in the designated area, 

and therefore it makes more sense to 

consider the benefits of the coordinated 

strategy as a whole. 

The components of the coordinated 

strategy would apply stringent NOX and 

SOX standards to virtually all vessels 

that affect U.S. air quality, and impacts 

on human health and welfare would be 

substantial. As presented in Section II, 

the coordinated is expected to provide 

very large reductions in direct PM, NOX, 

SOX, and toxic compounds, both in the 

near term and in the long term. 

Emissions of NOX (a precursor to ozone 

formation and secondarily-formed 

PM2.5), SOX (a precursor to secondarilyformed PM2.5) and directly-emitted 

PM2.5 contribute to ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone. 

Exposure to ozone and PM2.5 is linked 

to adverse human health impacts such 

as premature deaths as well as other 

important public health and 

environmental effects. 

Using the most conservative 

premature mortality estimates (Pope et 

al., 2002 for PM2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 

for ozone),153, 154 we estimate that 

implementation of the coordinated 

strategy would reduce approximately 

13,000 premature mortalities in 2030 

and yield approximately $110 billion in 

total benefits. The upper end of the 

premature mortality estimates (Laden et 

al., 2006 for PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 

for ozone) 155, 156 increases avoided 

premature mortalities to approximately 

32,000 in 2030 and yields 

approximately $280 billion in total 

benefits. Thus, even taking the most 

conservative premature mortality 

assumptions, the health impacts of the 

coordinated strategy presented in this 

proposal are clearly substantial. 

A. Overview 

We base our analysis on peerreviewed studies of air quality and 

human health effects (see U.S. EPA, 

2006 and U.S. EPA, 

2008).157, thnsp;158 These methods are 

described in more detail in the draft RIA 

that accompanies this proposal. To 

model the ozone and PM air quality 

impacts of the proposed CAA standards 

and requirements and the ECA 

designation, we used the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 

(see Section II). The modeled ambient 

air quality data serves as an input to the 

Environmental Benefits Mapping and 

Analysis Program (BenMAP).159

BenMAP is a computer program 

developed by the U.S. EPA that 

integrates a number of the modeling 

elements used in previous analyses (e.g., 

interpolation functions, population 

projections, health impact functions, 

valuation functions, analysis and 

pooling methods) to translate modeled 

air concentration estimates into health 

effects incidence estimates and 

monetized benefits estimates. 

The range of total ozone- and PMrelated benefits associated with the 

coordinated strategy to control ship 

emissions is presented in Table VIII–1. 

We present total benefits based on the 

PM- and ozone-related premature 

mortality function used. The benefits 

ranges therefore reflect the addition of 

each estimate of ozone-related 

premature mortality (each with its own 

row in Table VIII–1) to estimates of PMrelated premature mortality. These 

estimates represent EPA’s preferred 

approach to characterizing the best 

estimate of benefits associated with the 

coordinated strategy. As is the nature of 

Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), the 

assumptions and methods used to 

estimate air quality benefits evolve to 

reflect the Agency’s most current 

interpretation of the scientific and 

economic literature. This analysis, 

therefore, incorporates four important 

changes from recent RIAs released by 

the Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality (OTAQ): 

• As is the nature of Regulatory 

Impact Analyses (RIAs), the 

assumptions and methods used to 

estimate air quality benefits evolve over 

time to reflect the Agency’s most current 

interpretation of the scientific and 

economic literature. For a period of time 

(2004–2008), the Office of Air and 

Radiation (OAR) valued mortality risk 

reductions using a value of statistical 

life (VSL) estimate derived from a 

limited analysis of some of the available 

studies. OAR arrived at a VSL using a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44503 

158U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). 

Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved 

March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

ria.html. 159 Information on BenMAP, including 

downloads of the software, can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html. 160Mrozek, J.R., and L.O. Taylor. (2002). What 

Determines the Value of Life? A Meta-Analysis. 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 

21(2):253–270. 

161 Viscusi, V.K., and J.E. Aldy. (2003). The Value 

of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market 

Estimates Throughout the World. Journal of Risk 

and Uncertainty 27(1):5–76. 

162 In this analysis, we adjust the VSL to account 

for a different currency year (2006$) and to account 

for income growth to 2020 and 2030. After applying 

these adjustments to the $5.5 million value, the VSL 

is $7.7m in 2020 and $7.9 in 2030. 

163 Kochi, I., B. Hubbell, and R. Kramer. 2006. An 

Empirical Bayes Approach to Combining Estimates 

of the Value of Statistical Life for Environmental 

Policy Analysis. Environmental and Resource 

Economics. 34: 385–406. 

164U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2007. SAB Advisory on EPA’s Issues in 

Valuing Mortality Risk Reduction.http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4128007E7876B8F0852573760058A978/$File/sab08–001.pdf. 

165 In the (draft) update of the Economic 

Guidelines, EPA retained the VSL endorsed by the 

SAB with the understanding that further updates to 

the mortality risk valuation guidance would be 

forthcoming in the near future. Therefore, this 

report does not represent final agency policy. The 

2000 guidelines can be downloaded here: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/

Guidelines.html, and the draft updated version 

(2008) of the guidelines can be downloaded here: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/

vwRepNumLookup/EE–0516?OpenDocument. 

166 In this analysis, we adjust the VSL to account 

for a different currency year (2006$) and to account 

for income growth to 2020 and 2030. After applying 

these adjustments to the $6.3 million value, the VSL 

is $8.9m in 2020 and $9.1m in 2030. 

168U.S. Environmental Protection Agency— 

Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA–SAB). 2009. 

Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (First External Review Draft, 

December 2008). EPA–COUNCIL–09–008. May. 

Available on the Internet at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ 

sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954

fcb85256ead006be86e/73ACCA834AB

44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA–CASAC–09–

008-unsigned.pdf. 

169U.S. Environmental Protection Agency— 

Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA–SAB). 2009b. 

Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods 

Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. 

EPA–COUNCIL–09–009. May. Available on the 

Internet at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/

SABPRODUCT.NSF/81e39f4c09954fcb85256ead

006be86e/723FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/

$File/EPA–CASAC–09–009-unsigned.pdf. 

range of $1 million to $10 million 

(2000$) consistent with two metaanalyses of the wage-risk literature. The 

$1 million value represented the lower 

end of the interquartile range from the 

Mrozek and Taylor (2002) 160 metaanalysis of 33 studies and $10 million 

represented the upper end of the 

interquartile range from the Viscusi and 

Aldy (2003) 161 meta-analysis of 46 

studies. The mean estimate of $5.5 

million (2000$) 162 was also consistent 

with the mean VSL of $5.4 million 

estimated in the Kochi et al. (2006) 163

meta-analysis. However, the Agency 

neither changed its official guidance on 

the use of VSL in rule-makings nor 

subjected the interim estimate to a 

scientific peer-review process through 

the Science Advisory Board (SAB) or 

other peer-review group. 

During this time, the Agency 

continued work to update its guidance 

on valuing mortality risk reductions, 

including commissioning a report from 

meta-analytic experts to evaluate 

methodological questions raised by EPA 

and the SAB on combining estimates 

from the various data sources. In 

addition, the Agency consulted several 

times with the Science Advisory Board 

Environmental Economics Advisory 

Committee (SAB–EEAC) on the issue. 

With input from the meta-analytic 

experts, the SAB–EEAC advised the 

Agency to update its guidance using 

specific, appropriate meta-analytic 

techniques to combine estimates from 

unique data sources and different 

studies, including those using different 

methodologies (i.e., wage-risk and stated 

preference) (U.S. EPA–SAB, 2007).164

Until updated guidance is available, 

the Agency determined that a single, 

peer-reviewed estimate applied 

consistently best reflects the SAB–EEAC 

advice it has received. Therefore, the 

Agency has decided to apply the VSL 

that was vetted and endorsed by the 

SAB in the Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000) 

while the Agency continues its efforts to 

update its guidance on this issue.165

This approach calculates a mean value 

across VSL estimates derived from 26 

labor market and contingent valuation 

studies published between 1974 and 

1991. The mean VSL across these 

studies is $6.3 million (2000$).166

The Agency is committed to using 

scientifically sound, appropriately 

reviewed evidence in valuing mortality 

risk reductions and has made significant 

progress in responding to the SAB– 

EEAC’s specific recommendations. The 

Agency anticipates presenting results 

from this effort to the SAB–EEAC in the 

Fall 2009 and that draft guidance will be 

available shortly thereafter. 

• In recent analyses, OTAQ has 

estimated PM2.5-related benefits 

assuming that a threshold exists in the 

PM-related concentration-response 

functions (at 10 μg/m3) below which 

there are no associations between 

exposure to PM2.5 and health impacts. 

EPA strives to use the best available 

science to support our benefits analyses, 

and we recognize that interpretation of 

the science regarding air pollution and 

health is dynamic and evolving. Based 

on our review of the body of scientific 

literature, EPA applied the no-threshold 

model in this analysis. Removing the 

threshold assumption is consistent with 

the approach taken in the recently 

published Portland Cement MACT 

RIA.167 EPA’s draft Integrated Science 

Assessment (2008g), which was recently 

reviewed by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific 

Advisory Committee (CASAC),168, 169

concluded that the scientific literature 

consistently finds that a no-threshold 

log-linear model most adequately 

portrays the PM-mortality 

concentration-response relationship 

while recognizing potential uncertainty 

about the exact shape of the 

concentration-response function. 

Although this document does not 

represent final agency policy that has 

undergone the full agency scientific 

review process, it provides a basis for 

reconsidering the application of 

thresholds in PM2.5 concentrationresponse functions used in EPA’s RIAs. 

It is important to note that while 

CASAC provides advice regarding the 

science associated with setting the 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, typically other scientific 

advisory bodies provide specific advice 

regarding benefits analysis. Because the 

Portland Cement RIA was completed 

while CASAC was reviewing the PM 

ISA, we solicited comment on the use 

of the no-threshold model for benefits 

analysis within the preamble of that 

proposed rule. The comment period for 

the Portland Cement proposed NESHAP 

has been extended until September 4, 

2009.170 Please see Section 6.4.1.3 of the 

RIA that accompanies this preamble for 

more discussion of the treatment of 

thresholds in this analysis. 

• For the coordinated strategy, we 

rely on two empirical (epidemiological) 

studies of the relationship between 

ambient PM2.5 and premature mortality 

(the extended analyses of the Harvard 

Six Cities study by Laden et al (2006) 

and the American Cancer Society (ACS) 

cohort by Pope et al (2002)) to anchor 

our benefits analysis, though we also 

present the PM2.5-related premature 

mortality benefits associated with the 

estimates supplied by the expert 

elicitation as a sensitivity analysis. This 

approach was recently adopted in the 

Portland Cement MACT RIA. Since 

2006, EPA has calculated benefits based 

on these two empirical studies and 

derived the range of benefits, including 

the minimum and maximum results, 

from an expert elicitation of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44504 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

170Readers interested in commenting on the use 

of the no-threshold model for benefits analysis 

should direct their comments to Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051 (available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov) before the comment period 

closes. 171Roman, Henry A., Walker, Katherine D., 

Walsh, Tyra L., Conner, Lisa, Richmond, Harvey M., 

Hubbell, Bryan J., and Kinney, Patrick L. (2008). 

Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality 

Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate 

Matter in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 

2268—2274. 

172Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short-term 

mortality in 95 US urban communities, 1987–2000. 

Jama, 2004. 292(19): p. 2372–8. 

173Huang, Y.; Dominici, F.; Bell, M. L. (2005) 

Bayesian hierarchical distributed lag models for 

summer ozone exposure and cardio-respiratory 

mortality. Environmetrics 16: 547–562. 

174Schwartz, J. (2005) How sensitive is the 

association between ozone and daily deaths to 

control for temperature? Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care 

Med. 171: 627–631. 

175U.S. EPA (2007) Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Policy 

Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

Information. OAQPS Staff Paper.EPA–452/R–07– 

003. This document is available in Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2003–0190. Retrieved on April 10, 2009, 

from http:www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/ 

s_o3_cr_sp.html 

176CASAC (2007). Clean Air Scientific Advisory 

Committee’s (CASAC) Review of the Agency’s Final 

Ozone Staff Paper. EPA–CASAC–07–002. March 26. 

177Bell, M.L., F. Dominici, and J.M. Samet. 

(2005). A meta-analysis of time-series studies of 

ozone and mortality with comparison to the 

national morbidity, mortality, and air pollution 

study. Epidemiology, 16(4): p. 436–45. 

178 Ito, K., S.F. De Leon, and M. Lippmann. 

(2005). Associations between ozone and daily 

mortality: analysis and meta-analysis. 

Epidemiology. 16(4): p. 446–57. 

179Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. 

(2005). Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric 

bayes metaregression analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4): 

p. 458–68. 

180National Research Council (NRC), 2008. 

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic 

Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The 

National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 

relationship between exposure to PM2.5

and premature mortality (Roman et al., 

2008).171 Using alternate relationships 

between PM2.5 and premature mortality 

supplied by experts, higher and lower 

benefits estimates are plausible, but 

most of the expert-based estimates have 

fallen between the two epidemiologybased estimates (Roman et al., 2008). 

Assuming no threshold in the 

empirically-derived premature mortality 

concentration response functions used 

in the analysis of the coordinated 

strategy, only one expert falls below the 

empirically-derived range while two of 

the experts are above this range (see 

Tables 6–5 and 6–6 in the draft RIA that 

accompanies this preamble). Please refer 

to the Portland Cement MACT RIA for 

more information about the preferred 

approach and the evolution of the 

treatment of threshold assumptions 

within EPA’s regulatory analyses. 

• The range of ozone benefits 

associated with the coordinated strategy 

is estimated based on risk reductions 

derived from several sources of ozonerelated mortality effect estimates. This 

analysis presents six alternative 

estimates for the association based upon 

different functions reported in the 

scientific literature. We use three multicity studies,172, 173, 174 including the Bell, 

2004 National Morbidity, Mortality, and 

Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) that 

was used as the primary basis for the 

risk analysis in the ozone Staff Paper175

and reviewed by the Clean Air Science 

Advisory Committee (CASAC).176 We 

also use three studies that synthesize 

ozone mortality data across a large 

number of individual studies.177, 178, 179

This approach is consistent with 

recommendations provided by the NRC 

in their ozone mortality report (NRC, 

2008),180 ‘‘The committee recommends 

that the greatest emphasis be placed on 

estimates from new systematic multicity 

analyses that use national databases of 

air pollution and mortality, such as in 

the NMMAPS, without excluding 

consideration of meta-analyses of 

previously published studies.’’ The NRC 

goes on to note that there are 

uncertainties within each study that are 

not fully captured by this range of 

estimates. 

TABLE VIII–1—ESTIMATED 2030 MONETIZED PM-AND OZONE-RELATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF A COORDINATED U.S. 

STRATEGY TO CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONSA

2030 Total Ozone and PM Benefits—PM Mortality Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis and Six-Cities Analysisa

Premature Ozone Mortality Function Reference 

Total Benefits 

(Billions, 2006$, 

3% Discount 

Rate)c,d

Total Benefits 

(Billions, 2006$, 

7% Discount 

Rate)c,d

Multi-city analyses .................................................. Bell et al., 2004 ...................................................... $110—$280 $100—$250 

Huang et al., 2005 ................................................. 120—280 110—250 

Schwartz, 2005 ...................................................... 120—280 110—250 

Meta-analyses ......................................................... Bell et al., 2005 ...................................................... 120—280 110—250 

Ito et al., 2005 ........................................................ 120—280 110—260 

Levy et al., 2005 .................................................... 120—280 110—260 

Notes: 

a Total includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate 

from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 

2002) or the Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006). b Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A detailed listing of unquantified health 

and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII–2. c Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and 

OMB Circular A–4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. 

The benefits in Table VIII–1 include 

all of the human health impacts we are 

able to quantify and monetize at this 

time. However, the full complement of 

human health and welfare effects 

associated with PM and ozone remain 

unquantified because of current 

limitations in methods or available data. 

We have not quantified a number of 

known or suspected health effects 

linked with ozone and PM for which 

appropriate health impact functions are 

not available or which do not provide 

easily interpretable outcomes (i.e., 

changes in heart rate variability). 

Additionally, we are unable to quantify 

a number of known welfare effects, 

including reduced acid and particulate 

deposition damage to cultural 

monuments and other materials, and 

environmental benefits due to 

reductions of impacts of eutrophication 

in coastal areas. These are listed in 

Table VIII–2. As a result, the health 

benefits quantified in this section are 

likely underestimates of the total 

benefits attributable to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44505 

implementation of the coordinated 

strategy to control ship emissions. 

TABLE VIII–2—UNQUANTIFIED AND NON-MONETIZED POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF A COORDINATED U.S. STRATEGY TO

CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONS

Pollutant/Effects Effects not included in analysis—changes in: 

Ozone Healtha .......................................................................................... Chronic respiratory damage.b

Premature aging of the lungs.b

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits. 

Exposure to UVb (+/-).e

Ozone Welfare .......................................................................................... Yields for: 

—commercial forests, 

—some fruits and vegetables, 

—non-commercial crops. 

Damage to urban ornamental plants. 

Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics. 

Ecosystem functions. 

Exposure to UVb (+/-).e

PM Healthc ............................................................................................... Premature mortality—short term exposures.d

Low birth weight. 

Pulmonary function. 

Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis. 

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits. 

Exposure to UVb (+/-).e

PM Welfare ............................................................................................... Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas. 

Soiling and materials damage. 

Damage to ecosystem functions. 

Exposure to UVb (+/-).e

Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare ................................................. Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition. 

Commercial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition. 

Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition. 

Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems. 

Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition. 

Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition. 

Ecosystem functions 

Passive fertilization 

CO Health ................................................................................................. Behavioral effects 

HC/Toxics Healthf ..................................................................................... Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). 

Anemia (benzene). 

Disruption of production of blood components (benzene). 

Reduction in the number of blood platelets (benzene). 

Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene). 

Depression of lymphocyte counts (benzene). 

Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3-butadiene). 

Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes (formaldehyde). 

Respiratory irritation (formaldehyde). 

Asthma attacks in asthmatics (formaldehyde). 

Asthma-like symptoms in non-asthmatics (formaldehyde). 

Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde). 

Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (acrolein) 

HC/Toxics Welfare .................................................................................... Direct toxic effects to animals. 

Bioaccumulation in the food chain. 

Damage to ecosystem function. 

Odor. 

Notes: 

a The public health impact of biological responses such as increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our quantified 

endpoints. b The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented by 

quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as doctor visits and 

decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified. c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints. d While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to shortterm exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the expert 

elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of short term exposures. e May result in benefits or disbenefits. f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this rule are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44506 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

181Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. 

1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes 

of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States.’’ Environmental 

Health Perspectives 105(6):608–612. 

B. Quantified Human Health Impacts 

Tables VIII–3 and VIII–4 present the 

annual PM2.5 and ozone health impacts 

in the 48 contiguous U.S. states 

associated with the coordinated strategy 

for both 2020 and 2030. For each 

endpoint presented in Tables VIII–3 and 

VIII–4, we provide both the mean 

estimate and the 90% confidence 

interval. 

Using EPA’s preferred estimates, 

based on the ACS and Six-Cities studies 

and no threshold assumption in the 

model of mortality, we estimate that the 

coordinated strategy would result in 

between 5,300 and 14,000 cases of 

avoided PM2.5-related premature deaths 

annually in 2020 and between 13,000 

and 32,000 avoided premature deaths 

annually in 2030. As a sensitivity 

analysis, when the range of expert 

opinion is used, we estimate between 

1,900 and 18,000 fewer premature 

mortalities in 2020 and between 4,500 

and 42,000 fewer premature mortalities 

in 2030 (see Tables 6–5 and 6–6 in the 

draft RIA that accompanies this 

proposal). 

For ozone-related premature 

mortality, we estimate a range of 

between 61 to 280 fewer premature 

mortalities as a result of the coordinated 

strategy in 2020 and between 220 to 980 

in 2030. The increase in annual benefits 

from 2020 to 2030 reflects additional 

emission reductions from coordinated 

strategy, as well as increases in total 

population and the average age (and 

thus baseline mortality risk) of the 

population. 

TABLE VIII–3—ESTIMATED PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A COORDINATED U.S. STRATEGY TO

CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONS a

Health effect 

2020 Annual reduction in 

ship-related incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

2030 Annual reduction in 

ship-related incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

Premature Mortality—Derived from epidemiology literature: b

Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) ............................................... 5,300 

(2,100–8,500 ) 

13,000 

(5,000–20,000 ) 

Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study (Laden et al., 2006) ................................................. 14,000 

(7,400–20,000 ) 

32,000 

(18,000–47,000 ) 

Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et al., 1997) .................................................................. 20 

(0–55 ) 

37 

(0–100 ) 

Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) ........................................................................ 3,800 

(700–6,900 ) 

8,500 

(1,600–15,000 ) 

Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) .................................................... 8,800 

(3,200–14,000 ) 

22,000 

(8,100–35,000 ) 

Hospital admissions–respiratory (all ages) c ........................................................................ 1,200 

(590–1,800 ) 

2,900 

1,400–4,200 ) 

Hospital admissions–cardiovascular (adults, age >18) d ..................................................... 2,700 

(2,000–3,200 ) 

7,100 

(5,000–8,300 ) 

Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) ........................................ 3,500 

(2,000–4,900 ) 

8,100 

(4,800–11,000 ) 

Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8–12) ................................................................................. 8,500 

(0–17,000 ) 

19,000 

(0–37,000 ) 

Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) .............................................................. 100,000 

(49,000–150,000 ) 

220,000 

(110,000–330,000 ) 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) ............................................. 77,000 

(24,000–130,000 ) 

170,000 

(54,000–290,000 ) 

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) ......................................................... 95,000 

(10,000–260,000 ) 

210,000 

(23,000–580,000 ) 

Work loss days .................................................................................................................... 720,000 

(630,000–810,000 ) 

1,500,000 

(1,300,000–1,700,000 ) 

Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18–65) ............................................................... 4,300,000 

(3,600,000–4,900,000 ) 

9,000,000 

(7,600,000–10,000,000 ) 

Notes: 

a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous United States. 

bPM-related adult mortality based upon the American Cancer Society (ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six-Cities Study (Laden 

et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult mortality and should not be summed. PM-related infant mortality based upon 

a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997).181

c Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma. d Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and 

heart failure. 

TABLE VIII–4—ESTIMATED OZONE-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A COORDINATED U.S. STRATEGY TO

CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONSa

Health effect 

2020 Annual reduction in 

ship-related incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

2030 Annual reduction in 

ship-related incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

Premature Mortality, All ages b

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44507 

TABLE VIII–4—ESTIMATED OZONE-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH A COORDINATED U.S. STRATEGY TO

CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONSa—Continued 

Health effect 

2020 Annual reduction in 

ship-related incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

2030 Annual reduction in 

ship-related incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

Multi-City Analyses: 

Bell et al. (2004)—Non-accidental ............................................................................... 61 

(23–98 ) 

220 

(71–370 ) 

Huang et al. (2005)–Cardiopulmonary ......................................................................... 100 

(43–160 ) 

370 

(140–610 ) 

Schwartz (2005)—Non-accidental ................................................................................ 93 

(34–150 ) 

340 

(100–570 ) 

Meta-analyses: 

Bell et al. (2005)—All cause ......................................................................................... 200 

(100–290 ) 

690 

(330–1,100 ) 

Ito et al. (2005)—Non-accidental ................................................................................. 270 

(170–370 ) 

980 

(580–1,400 ) 

Levy et al. (2005)—All cause ....................................................................................... 280 

(200–360 ) 

980 

(670–1,300 ) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) c ........................................ 470 

(46–830 ) 

2,000 

(97–3,600 ) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, under 2) ............................................. 380 

(180–590 ) 

1,200 

(500–2,000 ) 

Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) ....................................................................... 210 

(0–550 ) 

740 

(0–1,900 ) 

Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18–65) .............................................................. 360,000 

(160,000–570,000 ) 

1,200,000 

(440,000–1,900,000 ) 

School absence days .......................................................................................................... 130,000 

(51,000–190,000 ) 

450,000 

(150,000–680,000 ) 

Notes: 

a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S. 

bEstimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et al. 

(2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005) ; Bell et al. (2005); Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related premature 

mortality should therefore not be summed. c Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia. 

C. Monetized Benefits 

Table VIII–5 presents the estimated 

monetary value of reductions in the 

incidence of ozone and PM2.5-related 

health effects. All monetized estimates 

are stated in 2006$. These estimates 

account for growth in real gross 

domestic product (GDP) per capita 

between the present and the years 2020 

and 2030. As the tables indicate, total 

benefits are driven primarily by the 

reduction in premature fatalities each 

year. 

Our estimate of total monetized 

benefits in 2020 for the coordinated 

strategy, using the ACS and Six-Cities 

PM mortality studies and the range of 

ozone mortality assumptions, is 

between $47 billion and $110 billion, 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or 

between $42 billion and $100 billion, 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate. In 

2030, we estimate the monetized 

benefits to be between $110 billion and 

$280 billion, assuming a 3 percent 

discount rate, or between $100 billion 

and $260 billion, assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate. The monetized benefit 

associated with reductions in the risk of 

both ozone- and PM2.5-related 

premature mortality ranges between 90 

to 98 percent of total monetized health 

benefits, in part because we are unable 

to quantify a number of benefits 

categories (see Table VIII–2). These 

unquantified benefits may be 

substantial, although their magnitude is 

highly uncertain. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44508 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44509 

182National Research Council (NRC), 2008. 

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic 

Continued 

D. What Are the Limitations of the 

Benefits Analysis? 

Every benefit-cost analysis examining 

the potential effects of a change in 

environmental protection requirements 

is limited to some extent by data gaps, 

limitations in model capabilities (such 

as geographic coverage), and 

uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to 

configure the benefit and cost models. 

Limitations of the scientific literature 

often result in the inability to estimate 

quantitative changes in health and 

environmental effects, such as potential 

increases in premature mortality 

associated with increased exposure to 

carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the 

economics literature often result in the 

inability to assign economic values even 

to those health and environmental 

outcomes which can be quantified. 

These general uncertainties in the 

underlying scientific and economics 

literature, which can lead to valuations 

that are higher or lower, are discussed 

in detail in the draft RIA and its 

supporting references. Key uncertainties 

that have a bearing on the results of the 

benefit-cost analysis of the coordinated 

strategy include the following: 

• The exclusion of potentially 

significant and unquantified benefit 

categories (such as health, odor, and 

ecological benefits of reduction in air 

toxics, ozone, and PM); 

• Errors in measurement and 

projection for variables such as 

population growth; 

• Uncertainties in the estimation of 

future year emissions inventories and 

air quality; 

• Uncertainty in the estimated 

relationships of health and welfare 

effects to changes in pollutant 

concentrations including the shape of 

the C–R function, the size of the effect 

estimates, and the relative toxicity of the 

many components of the PM mixture; 

• Uncertainties in exposure 

estimation; and 

• Uncertainties associated with the 

effect of potential future actions to limit 

emissions. 

As Table VIII–5 indicates, total 

benefits are driven primarily by the 

reduction in premature mortalities each 

year. Some key assumptions underlying 

the premature mortality estimates 

include the following, which may also 

contribute to uncertainty: 

• Inhalation of fine particles is 

causally associated with premature 

death at concentrations near those 

experienced by most Americans on a 

daily basis. Although biological 

mechanisms for this effect have not yet 

been completely established, the weight 

of the available epidemiological, 

toxicological, and experimental 

evidence supports an assumption of 

causality. The impacts of including a 

probabilistic representation of causality 

were explored in the expert elicitationbased results of the PM NAAQS RIA. 

• All fine particles, regardless of their 

chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality. 

This is an important assumption, 

because PM produced via transported 

precursors emitted from marine engines 

may differ significantly from PM 

precursors released from electric 

generating units and other industrial 

sources. However, no clear scientific 

grounds exist for supporting differential 

effects estimates by particle type. 

• The C–R function for fine particles 

is approximately linear within the range 

of ambient concentrations under 

consideration. Thus, the estimates 

include health benefits from reducing 

fine particles in areas with varied 

concentrations of PM, including both 

regions that may be in attainment with 

PM2.5 standards and those that are at 

risk of not meeting the standards. 

• There is uncertainty in the 

magnitude of the association between 

ozone and premature mortality. The 

range of ozone benefits associated with 

the proposed strategy is estimated based 

on the risk of several sources of ozonerelated mortality effect estimates. In a 

recent report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published 

by the National Research Council, a 

panel of experts and reviewers 

concluded that short-term exposure to 

ambient ozone is likely to contribute to 

premature deaths and that ozone-related 

mortality should be included in 

estimates of the health benefits of 

reducing ozone exposure.182 EPA has 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.003</GPH>
44510 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The 

National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 

183National Research Council (NRC). 2002. 

Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed 

Air Pollution Regulations. The National Academies 

Press: Washington, DC. 

184U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

October 2006. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared 

by: Office of Air and Radiation. Available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

requested advice from the National 

Academy of Sciences on how best to 

quantify uncertainty in the relationship 

between ozone exposure and premature 

mortality in the context of quantifying 

benefits. 

Emissions and air quality modeling 

decisions are made early in the 

analytical process. For this reason, the 

emission control scenarios used in the 

air quality and benefits modeling are 

slightly different than the coordinated 

strategy. The discrepancies impact the 

benefits analysis in three ways: 

• The air quality modeling used for 

the 2020 scenarios is based on inventory 

estimates that were modeled using 

incorrect boundary information. We 

believe the impact of this difference, 

while modest, likely leads to a small 

underestimate of the benefits that are 

presented in this section. Please refer to 

the Chapter 3 of the draft RIA for more 

information on the emissions excluded 

from the health impacts analysis. 

• The 2020 air quality modeling 

scenarios do not include emission 

reductions associated with the 

implementation of global controls (set 

through IMO) beyond the assumed ECA 

boundary of 200 nautical miles (nm). 

Again, while we expect the impact of 

this difference is modest, the omission 

of these additional emission reductions 

likely leads to a small underestimate of 

the 2020 benefits presented in this 

section. 

• As described in Section II, the air 

quality modeling for the 2030 scenario 

reflects air quality impacts associated 

with an assumed ECA distance of 100 

nm with global controls (set through 

IMO) beyond the ECA boundary. To 

estimate the 2030 benefits associated 

with a 200 nm ECA boundary, we 

transferred the relationship between 

modeled impacts between 100 nm and 

200 nm ECA boundaries observed in 

2020. For each health endpoint and 

associated valuation, we calculated a 

ratio based on the national-level 

estimate for the 200 nm and 100 nm 

scenario and applied that to the related 

2030 100 nm estimate. For the final 

rulemaking, we plan to model the 2030 

coordinated strategy to control ship 

emissions with a 200 nm boundary and 

global controls beyond. 

Despite the uncertainties described 

above, we believe this analysis provides 

a conservative estimate of the estimated 

economic benefits of the standards in 

future years because of the exclusion of 

potentially significant benefit categories 

that are not quantifiable at this time. 

Acknowledging benefits omissions and 

uncertainties, we present a best estimate 

of the total benefits based on our 

interpretation of the best available 

scientific literature and methods 

supported by EPA’s technical peer 

review panel, the Science Advisory 

Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee 

(SAB–HES). The National Academies of 

Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed 

EPA’s methodology for analyzing the 

health benefits of measures taken to 

reduce air pollution. EPA addressed 

many of these comments in the analysis 

of the final PM NAAQS.183 184 This 

analysis incorporates this most recent 

work to the extent possible. 

E. Comparison of Costs and Benefits 

This section presents the cost-benefit 

comparison related to the expected 

impacts of our coordinated strategy for 

ocean-going vessels. In estimating the 

net benefits of the coordinated strategy, 

the appropriate cost measure is ‘social 

costs.’ Social costs represent the welfare 

costs of a rule to society and do not 

consider transfer payments (such as 

taxes) that are simply redistributions of 

wealth. For this analysis, we estimate 

that the social costs of the coordinated 

program are equivalent to the estimated 

compliance costs of the program. While 

vessel owners and operators will see 

their costs increase by the amount of 

those compliance costs, they are 

expected to pass them on in their 

entirety to consumers of marine 

transportation services in the form of 

increased freight rates. Ultimately, these 

costs will be borne by the final 

consumers of goods transported by 

ocean-going vessels in the form of 

higher prices for those goods. The social 

benefits of the coordinated strategy are 

represented by the monetized value of 

health and welfare improvements 

experienced by the U.S. population. 

Table VIII–6 contains the estimated 

social costs and the estimated 

monetized benefits of the coordinated 

strategy. 

The results in Table VIII–6 suggest 

that the 2020 monetized benefits of the 

coordinated strategy are greater than the 

expected costs. Specifically, the annual 

benefits of the total program will range 

between $47 to $110 billion annually in 

2020 using a three percent discount rate, 

or between $42 to $100 billion assuming 

a 7 percent discount rate, compared to 

estimated social costs of approximately 

$1.9 billion in that same year. These 

benefits are expected to increase to 

between $110 and $280 billion annually 

in 2030 using a three percent discount 

rate, or between $100 and $260 billion 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate, 

while the social costs are estimated to 

be approximately $3.1 billion. Though 

there are a number of health and 

environmental effects associated with 

the coordinated strategy that we are 

unable to quantify or monetize (see 

Table VIII–2), the benefits of the 

coordinated strategy far outweigh the 

projected costs. 

Using a conservative benefits 

estimate, the 2020 benefits outweigh the 

costs by a factor of 22. Using the upper 

end of the benefits range, the benefits 

could outweigh the costs by a factor of 

58. Likewise, in 2030 benefits outweigh 

the costs by at least a factor of 32 and 

could be as much as a factor of 90. Thus, 

even taking the most conservative 

benefits assumptions, benefits of the 

coordinated strategy clearly outweigh 

the costs. 

TABLE VIII–6—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A COORDINATED U.S. STRATEGY TO

CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONS A

[Millions of 2006 dollars] 

Description 2020 2030 

Total Estimated Costs b .................................................... $1,900 ....................................................... $3,100. 

Total Estimated Health Benefits c, d, e, f

3 percent discount rate .............................................. $47,000 to $110,000 ................................. $110,000 to $280,000. 

7 percent discount rate .............................................. $42,000 to $100,000 ................................. $100,000 to $260,000. 

Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits—Total Costs) 

3 percent discount rate .............................................. $45,000 to $110,000 ................................. $110,000 to $280,000. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44511 

185Clean Ports USA (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

cleandiesel/ports for further information). 

186See MEPC 59/4/3 (9 April 2009), Response to 

IMO Secretariat’s invitation to ISO to make 

recommendations regarding fuel characteristics and 

parameters addressing air quality, ship safety, 

engine performance and crew health, Submitted by 

the International Organization for Standardization 

(ISO). 

TABLE VIII–6—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A COORDINATED U.S. STRATEGY TO

CONTROL SHIP EMISSIONS A—Continued 

[Millions of 2006 dollars] 

Description 2020 2030 

7 percent discount rate .............................................. $40,000 to $98,000 ................................... $97,000 to $260,000. 

Notes: 

aAll estimates represent annual benefits and costs anticipated for the years 2020 and 2030. Totals are rounded to two significant digits and 

may not sum due to rounding. bThe calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of annual cost do not include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Chapter 7 of the draft RIA). In Chapter 7, however, we use both a 3 percent and 7 percent social 

discount rate to calculate the net present value of total social costs consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses. cTotal includes ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2005 ozone premature mortality 

function to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from the ACS (Pope et al., 2002) and Six-Cities (Laden et al., 2006) studies. dAnnual benefits analysis results reflect the use of a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal 

myocardial infarctions, consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses. eValuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag 

structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March, 2005). f Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified 

and monetized are listed in Table VIII–2. 

IX. Alternative Program Options 

EPA’s coordinated strategy to control 

emissions from ocean-going vessels 

consists of a number of components 

including Clean Air Act standards for 

Category 3 engines and designation of 

an ECA for U.S. coasts through 

amendment to MARPOL Annex VI. The 

coordinated strategy will ensure that all 

ships operating within 200 nautical 

miles of U.S. coasts meet the most 

stringent NOX standards and fuel sulfur 

limits by 2015 (fuel sulfur) and 2016 

(engine NOX). 

The air quality and benefits analysis 

we performed for the coordinated 

strategy suggests that substantial human 

health and environmental benefits can 

be obtained from additional reductions 

in emissions from ocean-going vessels, 

and many stakeholders have expressed 

a desire for additional NOX reductions 

from OGV in earlier years, prior to the 

effective dates for the Tier 2 and Tier 3 

NOX limits. As described in Section I, 

above, EPA has a number of port 

initiatives under our National Clean 

Diesel Campaign to reduce emissions 

from this sector. These include 

recognition for efforts by port 

authorities and their customers to 

reduce emissions from OGV through a 

variety of efforts, grants under the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 Diesel 

Emissions Reduction Program to 

electrify piers and repower C1 and C2 

marine vessels, and grants under the 

Clean Air Act to demonstrate sea water 

scrubbers and to provide incentives to 

ship operators to use lower sulfur 

fuels.185 EPA has also sponsored a 

number of workshops and conferences 

focused on exchanging technical 

information about emissions reduction 

techniques for ships (Clean Ships 

Conference in San Diego in 2007, Faster 

Freight meetings on East and West 

coasts, and up-coming workshop with 

MARAD). EPA welcomes comment on 

ways in which the NCDC can be 

improved through ideas such as 

incentives (including financing 

schemes) to facilitate faster introduction 

of cleaner fuels and engine technologies, 

eco-speed programs, and adoption of 

other emission reduction methods that 

can be used on a vessel-specific or portspecific basis. 

In addition, we evaluated several 

programmatic alternatives including 

mandating the use of shoreside power in 

our CAA program, pulling the effective 

date of the CAA Tier 3 standards ahead, 

and various options for addressing 

emissions from existing engines. We 

also considered action under the Clean 

Air Act to apply the Tier 3 standards to 

foreign vessels that operate in the 

United States. However, as explained in 

more detail in Section V.D, foreign 

vessels will be required to comply with 

the Annex VI NOX and fuel sulfur limits 

through U.S. ECA designation and 

therefore it is unnecessary to take action 

under the Act at this time. 

The remainder of this section presents 

a summary of our analysis of these 

alternative control scenarios. We are 

interested in comments on each of these 

programmatic alternatives. 

A. Mandatory Cold Ironing Requirement 

To provide earlier air quality benefits, 

some commenters suggested adopting 

earlier Tier 3 NOX standards and fuel 

sulfur limits, requiring standards for 

existing engines, and/or requiring the 

use of shoreside power while ships are 

at dock (called ‘‘cold-ironing’’). 

Shoreside power is an effective way to 

reduce emissions from ships while they 

are at berth. The U.S. Navy is a pioneer 

and has used cold-ironing successfully 

for many years. However, to be 

successful, this strategy requires 

changes to both the ship and the port. 

First, the ship must be equipped to use 

shore power through changes to its 

equipment and electrical systems. The 

IMO, working with the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO), 

is currently developing harmonized 

requirements for these systems, and we 

believe it would be more effective for 

EPA to consider requiring such systems 

once the technology is better defined.186

Second, the port terminal must ensure 

that the electricity is available at the 

berths. This is a significant barrier to the 

adoption of shoreside power on a 

national basis. However, some port 

authorities already require cold-ironing 

for frequent-calling vessels and are 

pursuing additional reductions from 

shoreside port equipment. The Ports of 

Los Angeles, Long Beach, Seattle, and 

Tacoma are among those with coldironing programs. EPA is working with 

East Coast ports to develop plans for 

shoreside power as part of port 

development plans. 

B. Earlier Adoption of CAA Tier 3 

Standards 

We considered a programmatic 

alternative that would pull ahead the 

CAA Tier 3 NOX standard from 2016 to 

2014. This would require engine 

manufacturers to apply SCR two years 

earlier than they would be required to 

under the MARPOL Annex VI program. 

This option presents serious technical 

feasibility challenges. Beginning in 

2011, manufacturers will be introducing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44512 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

new engine-based technologies to meet 

the Tier 2 standards. We believe that 

these new NOX-reducing technologies 

and emission control approaches will 

also be the basis for Tier 3 engine 

designs. It will be necessary for 

manufacturers to design, develop, and 

validate these engine-based technologies 

before they can be used in conjunction 

with exhaust aftertreatment or 

additional engine-based technologies 

required to meet Tier 3 standards. Once 

these Tier 2 technologies are mature and 

well-understood, they can be further 

refined and developed for use with the 

additional NOX control technologies. 

The original five-year period between 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 was deemed 

challenging but feasible for engine 

manufacturers to design the Tier 3 

engines and incorporate those engines 

into new vessel designs. For this reason, 

we do not believe it is technically 

feasible to advance the Tier 3 standards 

for new engines earlier. 

Nevertheless, if such an alternative 

were feasible, we can estimate the 

inventory benefits associated with those 

earlier NOX reductions. Cumulative 

NOX emission reductions for the period 

2014 to 2023 as a result of the 

coordinated strategy presented in this 

Federal Register notice are estimated to 

be 3 million short tons NOX reduction 

beyond the Tier 1 standards (Table IX– 

1). Introducing the CAA Tier 3 

standards two years earlier than 

proposed would affect only U.S. vessels 

and would reduce an additional 0.07 

million short tons of reduction of NOX

beyond our coordinated strategy 

through 2023. The method we used to 

estimate these inventory impacts are 

presented in the draft RIA, Appendix 

3B. 

TABLE IX–1—COMPARISON OF NOX REDUCTIONS THROUGH 2023 WITH ADOPTION OF CAA TIER 3 IN 2016 VERSUS

2014 

Scenario 

NOX Emissions 

through 2023 

(short tons) 

Base Case ...............................................................................................................................................................................

(Tier 1 only NOX standards) .................................................................................................................................................... 10,494,636 

Primary Case ...........................................................................................................................................................................

(2016 NOX standards) ............................................................................................................................................................. 7,515,389 

Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................

(2014 NOX standards for U.S. Vessels) .................................................................................................................................. 7,444,866 

Due to the technical concerns 

described above, our review of this 

alternative leads us to conclude that 

advancing the introduction of the Tier 3 

NOX standards is not a feasible way to 

improve 2023 NOX reductions and 

could create significant problems for 

implementation of the overall 

coordinated strategy. Nevertheless, we 

request comment on this alternative and 

whether it could be modified to improve 

its feasibility. 

C. Standards for Existing Engines 

We examined a third programmatic 

alternative, including improvements in 

NOX emissions from pre-2016 engines. 

A control program for existing engines 

would help many areas, notably the 

South Coast of California, to achieve 

their ozone and PM NAAQS goals 

through Category 3 engine NOX

reductions sooner than fleet turnover 

would allow. In this section we describe 

several methods to control emissions 

from existing engines. We request 

comment on all aspects of these 

alternatives. 

(1) Clean Air Act Remanufacturing 

Program 

Our recently-finalized emission 

control program for marine diesel 

engines up to 30 liters per cylinder 

displacement includes standards that 

will apply to existing engines at the 

time they are remanufactured (73 FR 

25098, May 6, 2008, at 25130). In that 

program, we define ‘‘new marine 

engine’’ to include an engine that has 

been remanufactured, which is defined 

as replacement of all cylinder liners, 

either in one event or over a five-year 

period. Vessel owners/operators and 

engine rebuilders who remanufacture 

those engines would be required to use 

a certified remanufacture system when 

an engine is remanufactured if such a 

certified system is available; if there is 

no certified kit, there is no requirement 

until the time of the next remanufacture 

event. The program applies to engines 

with maximum engine power greater 

than 600 kW and manufactured in 1973 

or later, through Tier 2 (2012–14, 

depending on engine size). A certified 

marine remanufacture system must 

achieve a 25 percent reduction in PM 

emissions compared to the engine’s 

measured baseline emissions level 

without increasing NOX emissions. 

The program, which is similar to 

locomotive remanufacture program, was 

possible to adopt under the Clean Air 

Act because many commercial Category 

1 and 2 engines undergo periodic full 

like-new rebuilds to ensure their 

dependability by returning the engine to 

as-new condition. Many manufacturers 

provide guidance for a full rebuild to asnew condition, which might include 

replacing piston rings, heads, bearings, 

and gear train/camshaft as well as 

piston liners. Based on discussions with 

engine manufacturers, we determined 

that replacing all cylinder liners is a 

simple and clear indicator that the 

servicing being done is extensive 

enough for the engine to be considered 

functionally equivalent to a freshly 

manufactured engine, both 

mechanically and in terms of how it is 

used. Therefore, we defined 

remanufacture as the removal and 

replacement of all cylinder liners, either 

during a single maintenance event or 

over a five-year period. Marine diesel 

engines are not considered to be 

remanufactured if the rebuilding 

process falls short of this definition (i.e., 

the cylinder liners are removed and 

replaced over more than a five-year 

period). 

We do not think it is possible to adopt 

a similar program for Category 3 engines 

at this time. Even though Category 3 

engines may remain in the fleet for 

several decades, they are not maintained 

in the same way as Category 1 or 

Category 2 engines. Category 3 engines 

are very large, with cylinder sizes of 90 

liters not uncommon. Maintenance for 

these engines is very different than that 

for Category 1 or Category 2 engines. 

Specifically, piston liners, as well as 

other engine components, are not 

replaced unless there is a catastrophic 

failure. Our analysis of available 

information suggests that cylinder liners 

for engines this large are inspected 

based on hours of operation, with the 

standard interval being about 6,000 to 

12,000 hours for engines operating on 

residual fuel and up to 25,000 hours for 

engines operating on distillate fuel. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44513 

Engine manufacturers specify how this 

inspection is to be performed. Typically, 

the liner is inspected, measured, 

dressed, honed or replaced if beyond 

specifications. As each cylinder has 

individual wear characteristics, the 

complete engine liner replacement is 

not normally done on all cylinders at 

one time, since this would be much 

more expensive than the maintenance 

according to the manufacturer 

specifications. If there is an extended 

drydock, it is possible that a ship owner 

may take advantage of this time to 

inspect and work on several or all 

cylinders, but it is doubtful that a 

complete cylinder liner replacement 

would be done due to the expense. 

These engines are an integral part of the 

vessel design, and it would be difficult 

to replace the cylinder liners if it is not 

absolutely necessary. 

Other maintenance occurs on a 

cylinder-specific basis and is not 

comprehensive enough to return the 

engine to as-new condition. Finally, 

engine manufacturers have informed us 

that these engines are built to last, with 

most vessels being scrapped before the 

engine is worn out. Operating at lower 

speeds (130 rpm) also reduces wear on 

the cylinders. 

Based on the above information and 

because there is no specific 

maintenance action common to all 

Category 3 engines that (1) would return 

an engine to as-new condition and (2) 

could be used to identify engines as 

being remanufactured and therefore 

‘‘new,’’ we conclude it is not possible to 

extend the marine remanufacture 

program to Category 3 engines at this 

time. 

(2) MARPOL Annex VI Existing Engine 

Program 

MARPOL Annex VI has two sets of 

NOX provisions that apply to existing 

engines. These requirements will apply 

to engines on U.S. vessels through the 

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and 

are briefly described in this section. In 

addition to these NOX requirements, 

MARPOL Annex VI will provide 

significant PM reductions from existing 

vessels through its fuel sulfur 

requirements, particularly in a U.S. 

ECA. These PM benefits are described 

elsewhere in this Federal Register 

notice. 

First, Annex VI requires any engine 

above 130 kW that undergoes a major 

conversion to comply with the 

standards that are in effect at the time 

that major conversion takes place. Major 

conversion means the engine is replaced 

by a non-identical engine, an engine is 

added to the vessel, the engine’s 

maximum continuous rating is 

increased by more than 10 percent, or 

the engine undergoes any modification 

that would increase its emissions. 

Second, the recent amendments to 

Annex VI add a provision that requires 

all engines at or above 90 liters per 

cylinder displacement and above 5,000 

kW that were built between 1990 

through 1999 to comply with the Tier I 

NOX limits if there is a certified 

Approved Method (remanufacture 

system) for that engine. This kit-based 

approach is similar to our domestic 

program except it is triggered solely by 

the existence of a certified 

remanufacture system and does not also 

require a specific remanufacture event 

(i.e., replacing all cylinder liners either 

all at once or within a period of five 

years). The Tier 1 NOX limits are 

appropriate for this group of engines 

because they often are based on the 

same or a similar engine platform as the 

Tier 1 engines and the emission control 

techniques that apply to Tier 1 engines 

should also be applicable to many of the 

pre-Tier 1 engines. Pre-1990 engines 

were excluded from this program 

because their base engine platforms can 

be very different from Tier 1 engines; 

because many of the original engine 

manufacturers of these engines are no 

longer in business; and because the 

population of these engines is expected 

to be too small in 2010 to warrant 

emission controls. Engine 

manufacturers are expected to begin 

certifying Approved Methods when the 

Annex amendments go into force in July 

2010; owners will be required to install 

the kits at the time of the first renewal 

survey that occurs 12 months after the 

kit is certified. 

The combination of the Annex VI 

existing engine program to reduce NOX

emissions from very large Category 3 

engines and the Annex VI fuel sulfur 

program will significantly reduce NOX

and PM emissions from existing vessels. 

Because these requirements will apply 

to Category 3 engines on U.S. and 

foreign vessels through APPS, it is not 

necessary to adopt these same 

requirements under our Clean Air Act 

authority to protect U.S. air quality or to 

implement Annex VI. 

(3) Voluntary Marine Verification 

Program 

We are considering a programmatic 

alternative to encourage additional NOX

reductions from Category 3 engines on 

ocean-going vessels. In combination 

with state or local incentives, this 

program would provide incentives for 

owners to achieve, on a voluntary basis, 

greater emission reductions earlier than 

required for new Category 3 engines, 

and to retrofit existing Category 3 

engines with more advanced NOX

emission control technologies. 

In this approach, States, localities, 

and ports would encourage vessel 

owners to participate in this program 

through specially-designed incentive 

plans. This would allow States, 

localities, and ports the flexibility to 

tailor use of the program to their 

specific needs. 

To facilitate such state or local 

programs, EPA would set up a voluntary 

Marine Verification Program as an 

extension of our current diesel retrofit 

program. Under this program, we would 

provide a verification, based on 

simplified emission testing, for any 

vessel owner who provides data to show 

that the Category 3 propulsion engines 

on the relevant vessel achieve a more 

stringent tier of NOX limits, Tier 2 or 

Tier 3, than otherwise applies to those 

engines. While verification would not 

be equivalent to EPA certification (the 

base engine certification would remain 

the same), it would provide assurance to 

the states and localities that adopt such 

programs that the emission reductions 

are occurring. The test methods used to 

make this demonstration would be the 

same as those that would be used to 

comply with the production testing 

requirements for new engines (see 

Section VI.A.1.d, above). The 

verification could be periodically 

reviewed to ensure the engine continues 

to meet the verified emission levels. 

This could occur at the time of the 

vessel certification surveys required by 

MARPOL Annex VI, either the 

intermediate survey (every two and a 

half years) or the renewal survey (every 

five years). 

The voluntary Marine Verification 

Program would be available to Category 

3 propulsion engines on new or existing 

vessels, and would be based on 

achieving the Tier 2 or Tier 3 NOX

limits and not on a percent reduction 

from a baseline. Owners could achieve 

these NOX limits by adjusting the 

engine, retrofitting engine components, 

or retrofitting with an aftertreatment 

device. However, we would not 

consider an exhaust gas scrubber to be 

an acceptable control strategy for 

reducing NOX emissions (see Section 

V.C.2.b, above). 

Unlike a remanufacture program, 

which relies on the certification of 

remanufacture systems that would 

apply to all specified engines, the 

Marine Verification Program would 

apply to Category 3 propulsion engines 

on a vessel-specific basis. It would be 

up to the individual vessel owner to 

determine how to reduce the NOX

emissions from the engines on a vessel, 

and to demonstrate, per the testing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44514 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

protocols outlined above, that the 

relevant engines achieve the more 

stringent NOX limit. Note that an engine 

verification would not create the 

presumption that a verified retrofit 

constitutes a remanufacture system or 

Certified Approved Method that must be 

applied to all engines of the same 

model. However, we seek comment on 

whether there are ways to approve 

groups of engine in a verification to 

reduce the cost of the program by 

spreading design costs over more 

engines. 

Participation in the Marine 

Verification Program would be 

completely voluntary: no state, locality, 

or port authority would be required to 

adopt this program, and no vessel owner 

would be required to retrofit a NOX

emission control technology. 

We request comment on whether such 

a voluntary program would be beneficial 

to states and localities that seek earlier 

NOX reductions, and whether port 

authorities would take advantage of it in 

the context of various incentive 

programs. 

We also seek comment on how such 

a program could be applied in the 

context of the MARPOL Annex VI 

requirements for major conversions. 

Specifically, Regulation 13 of Annex VI 

requires that an engine that undergoes a 

major conversion be certified to the NOX

limits in effect at the time of the major 

conversion. A major conversion is 

defined as replacing an existing engine 

or adding an engine to a vessel, 

increasing the maximum continuous 

power of a vessel by more than ten 

percent, or by substantially modifying 

an engine. The NOX Technical Code 

defines substantial modification as any 

modification that ‘‘could potentially 

cause the engine to exceed’’ the 

Regulation 13 NOX limits. The NOX

Technical Code further specifies that, in 

the case of engines installed on vessels 

constructed before January 1, 2000, the 

impact on emissions must be shown by 

an emissions test. We do not think that 

participation in a Voluntary Marine 

Verification Program would trigger these 

requirements since ships would not be 

making adjustments that would increase 

emissions. However, we seek comment 

on whether they imply that a Portable 

Emissions Measurement System 

(PEMS)-based emission measurement 

should not be used and the simplified 

measurement methods contained in the 

NOX Technical Code should be used 

instead in order to be in compliance 

with Annex VI and the NOX Technical 

Code. If the latter is the case, we also 

seek comment on the cost of such 

emission measurement. 

We seek comment on how the 

MARPOL Annex VI documentation for 

an engine, including its technical file, 

would need to be adjusted for a verified 

engine. We also seek comment on how 

this program would apply to foreignflagged vessels. Specifically, if the 

Substantial Modification provisions of 

the NOX Technical Code are triggered by 

the Voluntary Marine Verification 

Program, it could also be necessary that 

vessels built before 2000 obtain an 

Engine International Air Pollution 

Prevention certificate from its flag state 

Administration. The ship could also be 

required to obtain and maintain the 

documentation that goes with it (Engine 

Technical File, Record Book of Engine 

Parameters). EPA would not be able to 

re-issue an EIAPP for vessels not flagged 

in the United States. It would be up to 

participating vessel owners to obtain a 

new EIAPP or a revised EIAPP from 

their flag Administration. We seek 

comment on whether this would 

prevent owners from participating in the 

program. 

X. Public Participation 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the emission control program that we 

are proposing under the CAA. 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 in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. 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 with respect to our 

CAA proposal identified throughout this 

document. 

Your comments will be most useful if 

you include appropriate and detailed 

supporting rationale, data, and analysis. 

Commenters are especially encouraged 

to provide specific suggestions for any 

changes to any aspect of the regulations 

that they believe need to be modified or 

improved. You should send all 

comments, except those containing 

proprietary information, to our Air 

Docket (see ADDRESSES located at the 

beginning of this document) before the 

end of the comment period. 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. If you wish to submit 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or information that is otherwise 

protected by statute, please follow the 

instructions in Section X.B. 

B. How Should I Submit CBI to the 

Agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through the electronic public docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by email. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Assessment and Standards 

Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. You may 

claim information that you submit to 

EPA as CBI by marking any part or all 

of that information as CBI (if you submit 

CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is CBI). Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket without 

prior notice. If you have any questions 

about CBI or the procedures for claiming 

CBI, please consult the person identified 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section at the beginning of this 

document. 

C. Will There Be a Public Hearing? 

We intend to hold two public 

hearings, one in the New York area and 

one in the Los Angeles area. We will 

publish information about the hearings 

on our Website, http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/oceanvessels.htm. 

If you would like to present testimony 

at the public hearings, we ask that you 

notify the contact person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44515 

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 will not 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. 

D. Comment Period 

The comment period for this rule will 

end on September 28, 2009. 

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

• Provide any technical information 

and/or data you used that support your 

views. 

• If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

• Offer alternatives. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

• To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number in the subject line 

on the first page of your response. It 

would also be helpful if you provided 

the name, date, and Federal Register 

citation related to your comments. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

As explained in Section I.A, the 

program we are proposing is part of a 

coordinated strategy to address 

emissions from ocean-going vessels. 

That coordinated strategy includes, 

among other actions, the combination 

the global Tier 2 NOX standards 

included in the amendments to Annex 

VI and the ECA Tier 3 NOX limits and 

fuel sulfur limits that will apply when 

the U.S. coasts are designated as an ECA 

through an additional amendment to 

Annex VI. These engine and fuel 

standards will be enforceable for all 

vessels, U.S. and foreign, operating in 

the United States through the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships. Because 

the coordinated strategy in its entirety is 

economically significant (see cost 

analysis in Section V), the components 

we are adopting in this rule (engine 

controls for Category 3 engines on U.S. 

vessels under our Clean Air Act 

program, as required by section 213 of 

the Act that are identical to the 

MARPOL Annex VI NOX limits; limits 

on hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide 

emissions for Category 3 engines; PM 

measurement requirement; changes to 

our Clean Air Act diesel fuel program to 

allow production and sale of ECAcompliant fuel; changes to our emission 

control program for smaller marine 

diesel engines to harmonize with the 

Annex VI NOX requirements, for U.S. 

vessels that operate internationally) may 

also be considered to be economically 

significant. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it raises novel legal or 

policy issues due to the international 

nature of the use of Category 3 marine 

diesel engines. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under EO 12866 and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with our coordinated strategy 

for controlling emissions from oceangoing vessels. While the costs of the 

coordinated strategy are ‘‘significant,’’ 

the costs of the CAA program described 

in this proposal are minimal, as 

explained above in the introduction to 

this section. This analysis is contained 

in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 

that was prepared, and is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking and at the 

docket Internet address listed under 

ADDRESSES above. 

B. 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. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR Number 2345.01. 

Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that manufacturers provide 

information the Administrator may 

reasonably require to determine 

compliance with the regulations; 

submission of the information is 

therefore mandatory. We will consider 

confidential all information meeting the 

requirements of section 208(c) of the 

Clean Air Act. Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for 

manufacturers would be pursuant to the 

authority of section 208 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

The data we require in this ICR is 

necessary to comply with Title II of the 

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. The 

Act directs us to adopt regulations for 

nonroad engines if we determine those 

engines contribute significantly to air 

pollution in the U.S. Now that we have 

made this determination, the Act directs 

us to set emission standards for any 

category of nonroad engines that 

contribute to air quality nonattainment 

in two or more areas in the U.S. We can 

only meet the requirements of the Act 

by collecting data from the regulated 

industry. Also, we will only have an 

effective program if we know that these 

engines maintain their certified 

emission level throughout their 

operating lives. 

The burden for certification testing is 

generally based on conducting two 

engine tests for each engine family, then 

using that test data for several years. 

The manufacturer’s application for 

certification involves an extensive effort 

the first year, followed by relatively 

little effort in subsequent years. We 

estimate that manufacturers will 

conduct new certification testing every 

five years; the costs have been estimated 

on an annual average basis. In addition 

to testing, manufacturers must prepare 

the application for certification and 

maintain appropriate records. We have 

estimated the cost of these combined 

activities, which include engineering 

and clerical effort, to be about $20,000 

for each Category 3 marine diesel engine 

per certification cycle. As with the 

testing costs, we are presenting annual 

average costs. The burden for 

production-line testing is based on an 

industry-wide calculation. Rebuilders, 

including operators of marine vessels 

with Category 3 engines, must keep 

records as needed to show that rebuilt 

engines continue to meet emission 

standards, consistent with the 

manufacturer’s original design. In 

addition, owners and operators of 

marine vessels with Category 3 engines 

must record information about their 

location when rebuilding engines or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44516 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

making other adjustments and send 

minimal annual notification to EPA to 

show that engine maintenance and 

adjustments have not caused engines to 

be noncompliant. Burden is defined at 

5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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 in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after August 28, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by September 28, 2009. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that is primarily engaged in 

manufacture of large diesel marine 

engines as defined by NAICS code 

333618 with 1,000 or fewer employees 

(based on Small Business 

Administration size standards) or a 

small business primarily engaged in the 

shipbuilding and repairing as defined 

by NAICS code 336611 with 1,000 or 

fewer employees (based on Small 

Business Administration 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; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

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. This proposed rule will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. There are no small entities in 

this regulated industry. We continue to 

be interested in the potential impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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. 

While the costs of the coordinated 

strategy exceed the $100 million per 

year threshold for the private sector, the 

costs of the components of that strategy 

that are the subject of this rule are less 

than $100 million per year, as explained 

in the introduction to this section and 

in Section VII. Therefore, this action is 

not subject to the requirements of 

Sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This 

action is also not subject to the 

requirements of Section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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. The proposed 

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. 

Although Section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, 

EPA did consult with representatives of 

various State and local governments in 

developing this rule. EPA consulted 

with representatives from the National 

Association of Clean Air Agencies 

(NACAA, formerly STAPPA/ALAPCO), 

the Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM), and the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). The rule will be 

implemented at the Federal level and 

impose compliance costs only on 

manufacturers of marine engines and 

marine vessels. Tribal governments will 

be affected only to the extent they 

purchase and use the regulated engines 

and vehicles. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866. While the costs of 

the coordinated strategy are 

‘‘significant,’’ the costs of the CAA 

program described in this proposal are 

minimal, as explained above in the 

introduction to this section. The health 

and risk assessments associated with the 

coordinated strategy for controlling 

emissions from ocean-going vessels are 

contained in Section II.A of the 

preamble and Chapter 2 of the draft RIA, 

which has been placed in the public 

docket under Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

The public is invited to submit or 

identify peer-reviewed studies and data, 

of which EPA may not be aware, that 

assessed results of early life exposure to 

the pollutants addressed by this 

proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44517 

187 ICF International. December 1, 2008. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter 

concentration isopleths near selected harbor areas 

with revised emissions (revised). Memorandum to 

EPA under Work Assignment Number 1–9, Contract 

Number EP–C–06–094. This memo is available in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

188 ICF International. December 10, 2008. 

Estimation of diesel particulate matter population 

exposure near selected harbor areas with revised 

harbor emissions (revised). Memorandum to EPA 

under Work Assignment Number 2–9, Contract 

Number EP–C–06–094. This memo is available in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0121. 

189The emissions inventories used as inputs for 

the analyses are not official estimates and likely 

underestimate overall emissions because they are 

not inclusive of all emission sources at the 

individual ports in the sample. 

190The Agency selected a representative sample 

from the top 150 U.S. ports including coastal, 

inland and Great Lake ports. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), requires EPA to prepare and 

submit a Statement of Energy Effects to 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, for 

certain actions identified as ‘‘significant 

energy actions.’’ Section 4(b) of 

Executive Order 13211 defines 

‘‘significant energy actions’’ as ‘‘any 

action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action.’’ We have 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for this action as follows. 

This rule’s potential effects on energy 

supply, distribution, or use have been 

analyzed and are discussed in detail in 

Section 4.6 of the RIA. In summary, 

while we project that this rule would 

result in an energy effect that exceeds 

the 10,000 barrel per day change in 

crude oil production threshold noted in 

E.O. 13211, this rule does not 

significantly affect the energy use, 

production, or distribution beyond what 

is required by Annex VI of the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 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. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. Therefore, the 

Agency conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. The International 

Organization for Standardization has a 

voluntary consensus standard that can 

be used to test engines. However, the 

test procedures in this proposal reflect 

a level of development that goes 

substantially beyond the ISO or other 

published procedures. The proposed 

procedures incorporate new 

specifications for steady-state emission 

measurements and measuring emissions 

using field-testing procedures. The 

procedures we adopt in this rule will 

form the working template for ISO and 

national and state governments to define 

test procedures for measuring engine 

emissions. As such, we have worked 

extensively with the representatives of 

other governments, testing 

organizations, and the affected 

industries. 

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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

Together, this proposed rule which 

addresses emissions from domesticflagged vessels and the joint U.S./ 

Canada ECA application to the IMO 

which addresses emissions from 

foreign-flagged vessels (referred to as the 

‘‘coordinated strategy’’) will achieve 

significant reductions of various 

emissions from Category 3 marine diesel 

engines, including NOX, SOX, and direct 

PM. Exposure to these pollutants raises 

concerns regarding environmental 

health for the U.S. population in general 

including the minority populations and 

low-income populations that are the 

focus of the environmental justice 

executive order. 

The emission reductions from the 

new standards in the coordinated 

strategy will have large beneficial effects 

on communities in proximity to port, 

harbor, and waterway locations, 

including low-income and minority 

communities. In addition to exhaust 

emission standards for freshly 

manufactured and remanufactured 

engines, the coordinated strategy, if 

finalized, would further reduce 

emissions from regulated engines that 

directly impact low-income and 

minority communities. 

EPA recently updated its initial 

screening-level analysis of selected 

marine port areas to better understand 

the populations, including minority and 

low-income populations, that are 

exposed to diesel PM emission sources 

from these facilities.187, 188 This 

screening-level analysis is an inexact 

tool and should only be considered for 

illustrative purposes to help understand 

potential impacts. The analysis 

included all emission sources as well as 

ocean-going marine diesel engines, and 

focused on a representative selection of 

national marine ports (45 ports 

total).189, 190 Considering only oceangoing marine engine diesel PM 

emissions, the results indicate that 6.5 

million people are exposed to ambient 

diesel PM levels that are 2.0 μg/m3 and 

0.2 μg/m3 above levels found in areas 

further from these facilities. This 

population includes a disproportionate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44518 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

number of low-income households, 

African-Americans, and Hispanics. The 

results from all emission sources show 

that nearly 18 million people are 

exposed to higher levels of diesel PM 

from all sources at the marine port areas 

than urban background levels. Because 

those living in the vicinity of marine 

ports are more likely to be low-income 

households and minority residents, 

these populations would receive a 

significant benefit from the combined 

coordinated strategy. See Section VIII of 

this preamble and Chapter 6 of the draft 

RIA for a discussion on the benefits of 

this rule, including the benefits to 

minority and low-income communities. 

XII. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for the controls in 

this final rule can be found in sections 

203–209, 211, 213 (which specifically 

authorizes controls on emissions from 

nonroad engines and vehicles), 216, and 

301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. 7414, 7522, 7523, 7424, 7525, 

7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 

7601. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Diesel Fuel, Fuel 

Additives, Imports, Labeling, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 85 

Confidential business information, 

Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 86 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Motor 

vehicle. 

40 CFR Part 94 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1027 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Imports, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 1033 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Railroads, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 1039 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1042 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1043 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Imports, Vessels, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Parts 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 

and 1060 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1065 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Research. 

40 CFR Part 1068 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

Dated: June 26, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

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 set forth below. 

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUEL 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, 7545, and 

7601. 

2. Section 80.2 is amended as follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (ccc). 

b. By revising paragraph (nnn). 

c. By adding paragraph (ttt). 

§ 80.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(ccc) Heating Oil means any #1, #2, or 

non-petroleum diesel blend that is sold 

for use in furnaces, boilers, and similar 

applications and which is commonly or 

commercially known or sold as heating 

oil, fuel oil, and similar trade names, 

and that is not jet fuel, kerosene, or 

MVNRLM diesel fuel. 

* * * * * 

(nnn) Nonroad, locomotive, or marine 

(NRLM) diesel fuel means any diesel 

fuel or other distillate fuel that is used, 

intended for use, or made available for 

use, as a fuel in any nonroad diesel 

engines, including locomotive and 

marine diesel engines, except the 

following: Distillate fuel with a T90 at 

or above 700 °F that is used only in 

Category 2 and 3 marine engines is not 

NRLM diesel fuel, and ECA marine fuel 

is not NRLM diesel fuel. Use the 

distillation test method specified in 40 

CFR 1065.1010 to determine the T90 of 

the fuel. NR diesel fuel and LM diesel 

fuel are subcategories of NRLM diesel 

fuel. 

(1) Any diesel fuel that is sold for use 

in stationary engines that are required to 

meet the requirements of § 80.510(a) 

and/or (b), when such provisions are 

applicable to nonroad engines, shall be 

considered NRLM diesel fuel. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(ttt) ECA marine fuel is distillate or 

residual fuel that is used, intended for 

use, or made available for use in 

Category 3 marine vessels operating 

within an Emission Control Area (ECA). 

3. Revise the heading to Subpart I of 

part 80 to read as follows: 

Subpart I—Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel; 

Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine 

Diesel Fuel; and ECA Marine Fuel 

4. Section 80.501 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a)(5). 

b. By revising paragraph (a)(6). 

c. By adding paragraph (a)(7). 

§ 80.501 What fuel is subject to the 

provisions of this subpart? 

(a) * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44519 

(5) ECA marine fuel. 

(6) Other distillate fuels. 

(7) Motor oil that is used as or 

intended for use as fuel in diesel motor 

vehicles or nonroad diesel engines or is 

blended with diesel fuel for use in 

diesel motor vehicles or nonroad diesel 

engines, including locomotive and 

marine diesel engines, at any 

downstream location. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 80.502 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a). 

b. By revising paragraph (b) 

introductory text and paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text. 

c. By revising paragraph (c). 

d. By revising paragraph (d) 

introductory text. 

e. By adding paragraph (g). 

f. By adding paragraph (h). 

§ 80.502 What definitions apply for 

purposes of this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(a) Entity means any refiner, importer, 

distributor, retailer or wholesalepurchaser consumer of any distillate 

fuel (or other product subject to the 

requirements of this subpart I). 

(b) Facility means any place, or series 

of places, where an entity produces, 

imports, or maintains custody of any 

distillate fuel (or other product subject 

to the requirements of this subpart I) 

from the time it is received to the time 

custody is transferred to another entity, 

except as described in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (4) of this section: 

(1) Where an entity maintains custody 

of a batch of diesel fuel (or other 

product subject to the requirements of 

this subpart I) from one place in the 

distribution system to another place 

(e.g., from a pipeline to a terminal), all 

owned by the same entity, both places 

combined are considered to be one 

single aggregated facility, except where 

an entity chooses to treat components of 

such an aggregated facility as separate 

facilities. The choice made to treat these 

places as separate facilities may not be 

changed by the entity during any 

applicable compliance period. Except as 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, where compliance requirements 

depend upon facility-type, the entire 

facility must comply with the 

requirements that apply to its 

components as follows: 

* * * * * 

(c) Truck loading terminal means any 

facility that dyes NRLM diesel fuel or 

ECA marine fuel, pays taxes on motor 

vehicle diesel fuel per IRS code (26 CFR 

part 48), or adds a fuel marker pursuant 

to § 80.510 to heating oil and delivers 

diesel fuel or heating oil into trucks for 

delivery to retail or ultimate consumer 

locations. 

(d) Batch means a quantity of diesel 

fuel (or other product subject to the 

requirements of this subpart I) which is 

homogeneous with regard to those 

properties that are specified for 

MVNRLM diesel fuel or ECA marine 

fuel under this subpart I of this part, has 

the same designation under this subpart 

I (if applicable), and whose custody is 

transferred from one facility to another 

facility. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission Control Area. An 

Emission Control Area (ECA), for the 

purposes of this Part, is defined as the 

area delineated in section 2 of the 

document ‘‘CONSIDERATION AND 

ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO 

MANDATORY INSTRUMENTS’’ 

submitted by the governments of the 

United States and Canada to the 

International Maritime Organization on 

March 27, 2009, and all internal waters 

of the United States. 

(h) Marine diesel engine. For the 

purposes of this subpart I only, marine 

diesel engine means a diesel engine 

installed on a Category 1 (C1) or 

Category 2 (C2) marine vessel. 

6. Section 80.510 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading. 

b. By revising paragraph (f) 

introductory text and adding paragraph 

(f)(6). 

c. By revising paragraph (g)(1). 

d. By adding paragraph (k). 

§ 80.510 What are the standards and 

marker requirements for NRLM diesel fuel 

and ECA marine fuel? 

* * * * * 

(f) Marking provisions. From June 1, 

2012 through May 31, 2014: 

* * * * * 

(6) Marker solvent yellow 124 shall 

not be used in any MVNRLM or heating 

oil after May 31, 2014. 

(g) * * * 

(1) Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Area, 

which includes the following states and 

counties, through May 31, 2014: North 

Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, 

New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, Vermont, New 

Hampshire, Maine, Washington D.C., 

New York (except for the counties of 

Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and 

Allegany), Pennsylvania (except for the 

counties of Erie, Warren, McKean, 

Potter, Cameron, Elk, Jefferson, Clarion, 

Forest, Venango, Mercer, Crawford, 

Lawrence, Beaver, Washington, and 

Greene), and the eight eastern-most 

counties of West Virginia (Jefferson, 

Berkeley, Morgan, Hampshire, Mineral, 

Hardy, Grant, and Pendleton). 

* * * * * 

(k) Beginning June 1, 2014. Except as 

otherwise specifically provided in this 

subpart, all ECA marine fuel is subject 

to a maximum per-gallon sulfur content 

of 1,000 ppm. 

7. Section 80.511 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading. 

b. By revising paragraph (a). 

c. By revising paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(b)(9). 

d. By adding paragraph (b)(10). 

§ 80.511 What are the per-gallon and 

marker requirements that apply to NRLM 

diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, and heating oil 

downstream of the refiner or importer? 

(a) Applicable dates for marker 

requirements. Beginning June 1, 2006, 

all NRLM diesel fuel and ECA marine 

fuel shall contain less than 0.10 

milligrams per liter of the marker 

solvent yellow 124, except for LM diesel 

fuel subject to the marking requirements 

of § 80.510(e). 

(b) * * * 

(4) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b)(5) through (b)(8) of this section, the 

per-gallon sulfur standard of § 80.510(c) 

shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel 

beginning August 1, 2014 for all 

downstream locations other than retail 

outlets or wholesale purchaserconsumer facilities, shall apply to all 

NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1, 

2014 for retail outlets and wholesale 

purchaser-consumer facilities, and shall 

apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning 

December 1, 2014 for all locations. 

* * * * * 

(9) The per-gallon sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k) shall apply to all ECA 

marine fuel beginning August 1, 2014 

for all downstream locations other than 

retail outlets or wholesale purchaserconsumer facilities, shall apply to all 

ECA marine fuel beginning October 1, 

2014 for retail outlets and wholesale 

purchaser-consumer facilities, and shall 

apply to all ECA marine fuel beginning 

December 1, 2014 for all locations. 

(10) For the purposes of this section, 

distributors that have their own fuel 

storage tanks and deliver only to 

ultimate consumers shall be treated the 

same as retailers and their facilities 

treated the same as retail outlets. 

8. Section 80.513 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 80.513 What provisions apply to 

transmix processing facilities? 

* * * * * 

(e) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, 

NRLM diesel fuel produced by a 

transmix processor is subject to the 

standards of § 80.510(c). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44520 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

9. Section 80.525 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.525 What requirements apply to 

kerosene blenders? 

* * * * * 

(b) Kerosene blenders are not subject 

to the requirements of this subpart 

applicable to refiners of diesel fuel, but 

are subject to the requirements and 

prohibitions applicable to downstream 

parties. 

* * * * * 

(d) Kerosene that a kerosene blender 

adds or intends to add to diesel fuel 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur content 

standard must meet the 15 ppm sulfur 

content standard, and either of the 

following requirements: 

(1) The product transfer document 

received by the kerosene blender 

indicates that the kerosene is diesel fuel 

that complies with the 15 ppm sulfur 

content standard. 

(2) The kerosene blender has test 

results indicating the kerosene complies 

with the 15 ppm sulfur standard. 

10. Section 80.551 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 80.551 How does a refiner obtain 

approval as a small refiner under this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(f) Approval of small refiner status for 

refiners who apply under § 80.550(d) 

will be based on all information 

submitted under paragraph (c) of this 

section, except as provided in 

§ 80.550(e). 

* * * * * 

11. Section 80.561 is amended by 

revising the section heading to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.561 How can a refiner or importer 

seek temporary relief from the requirements 

of this subpart in case of extreme 

unforeseen circumstances? 

* * * * * 

12. Section 80.570 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 80.570 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of diesel fuel beginning June 1, 

2006? 

(a) From June 1, 2006 through 

September 30, 2010, any retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer who 

sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or 

dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.520(a)(1), must affix the following 

conspicuous and legible label, in block 

letters of no less than 24-point bold 

type, and printed in a color contrasting 

with the background, to each pump 

stand: 

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY 

DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur 

Maximum) 

Required for use in all model year 

2007 and later highway diesel vehicles 

and engines. Recommended for use in 

all diesel vehicles and engines. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 80.571 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.571 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of NRLM diesel fuel or heating 

oil beginning June 1, 2007? 

* * * * * 

(b) From June 1, 2007 through 

September 30, 2010, for pumps 

dispensing NRLM diesel fuel meeting 

the 500 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(a): 

LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY DIESEL 

FUEL (500 ppm Sulfur Maximum) 

WARNING 

Federal Law prohibits use in highway 

vehicles or engines. 

* * * * * 

(d) From June 1, 2007 and beyond, for 

pumps dispensing non-motor vehicle 

diesel fuel for use other than in 

nonroad, locomotive, or marine engines, 

such as for use as heating oil: 

HEATING OIL (May Exceed 500 ppm 

Sulfur) 

WARNING 

Federal law prohibits use in highway 

vehicles or engines, or in nonroad, 

locomotive, or marine diesel engines. 

Its use may damage these diesel 

engines. 

* * * * * 

14. Section 80.572 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.572 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of NR and NRLM diesel fuel and 

heating oil beginning June 1, 2010? 

* * * * * 

(a) From June 1, 2010 through 

September 31, 2014, any retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer who 

sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or 

dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.520(a)(1), must affix the following 

conspicuous and legible label, in block 

letters of no less than 24-point bold 

type, and printed in a color contrasting 

with the background, to each pump 

stand: 

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY 

DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur 

Maximum) 

Required for use in all highway diesel 

vehicles and engines. 

Recommended for use in all diesel 

vehicles and engines. 

(b) From June 1, 2010 through 

September 30, 2012, for pumps 

dispensing NR diesel fuel subject to the 

15 ppm sulfur standard of § 80.510(b): 

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY 

DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur 

Maximum) 

Required for use in all model year 

2011 and later nonroad diesel engines. 

Recommended for use in all other nonhighway diesel engines. 

WARNING 

Federal law prohibits use in highway 

vehicles or engines. 

* * * * * 

15. Section 80.573 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 80.573 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating 

oil beginning June 1, 2012? 

* * * * * 

(a) From June 1, 2012 through 

September 30, 2014, for pumps 

dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to 

the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(c): 

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY 

DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur 

Maximum) 

Required for use in all model year 

2011 and later nonroad diesel engines. 

Recommended for use in all other 

non-highway diesel engines. 

WARNING 

Federal law prohibits use in highway 

vehicles or engines. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 80.574 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.574 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of ECA marine fuel beginning 

June 1, 2014? 

(a) Any retailer or wholesale 

purchaser-consumer who sells, 

dispenses, or offers for sale or 

dispensing ECA marine fuel must 

prominently and conspicuously display 

in the immediate area of each pump 

stand from which ECA marine fuel is 

offered for sale or dispensing, one of the 

following legible labels, as applicable, 

in block letters of no less than 24-point 

bold type, printed in a color contrasting 

with the background: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44521 

(1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for 

pumps dispensing ECA marine fuel 

subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard 

of § 80.510(k): 

1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE 

FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum). 

For use in Category 3 (C3) marine 

vessels only. 

WARNING 

Federal law prohibits use in any 

engine that is not installed on a C3 

marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a 

sulfur content greater than 1,000 ppm in 

the U.S. Emission Control Area and all 

U.S. internal waters is illegal. 

(2) The labels required by paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section must be placed on 

the vertical surface of each pump 

housing and on each side that has gallon 

and price meters. The labels shall be on 

the upper two-thirds of the pump, in a 

location where they are clearly visible. 

(b) Alternative labels to those 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

may be used as approved by EPA. 

(1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: 

Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 

6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

(2) For overnight or courier services: 

U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur 

Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1310 L 

Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20005. (202) 343–9038. 

17. Section 80.580 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.580 What are the sampling and 

testing methods for sulfur? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) For ECA marine fuel subject to the 

1,000 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k)(1), sulfur content may be 

determined using ASTM D2622 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (e) of this section). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Options for testing sulfur content 

of 1,000 ppm diesel fuel. (i) For ECA 

marine fuel subject to the 1,000 ppm 

sulfur standard of § 80.510(k), sulfur 

content may be determined using ASTM 

D4294, ASTM D5453, or ASTM D6920 

(all incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (e) of this section), provided 

that the refiner or importer test result is 

correlated with the appropriate method 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section; or 

(ii) For ECA marine fuel subject to the 

1,000 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k), sulfur content may be 

determined using any test method 

approved under § 80.585. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 80.581 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.581 What are the batch testing and 

sample retention requirements for motor 

vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, and 

ECA marine fuel? 

(a) Beginning on June 1, 2006 or 

earlier pursuant to § 80.531 for motor 

vehicle diesel fuel, beginning June 1, 

2010 or earlier pursuant to § 80.535 for 

NRLM diesel fuel, and beginning June 1, 

2014 for ECA marine fuel, each refiner 

and importer shall collect a 

representative sample from each batch 

of motor vehicle or NRLM diesel fuel 

produced or imported and subject to the 

15 ppm sulfur content standard, or ECA 

marine fuel subject to the 1,000 ppm 

sulfur content standard. Batch, for the 

purposes of this section, means batch as 

defined under § 80.2 but without the 

reference to transfer of custody from one 

facility to another facility. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Any refiner who produces 

motor vehicle, NRLM diesel fuel, or 

ECA marine fuel using computercontrolled in-line blending equipment, 

including the use of an on-line analyzer 

test method that is approved under the 

provisions of § 80.580, and who, 

subsequent to the production of the 

diesel fuel batch tests a composited 

sample of the batch under the 

provisions of § 80.580 for purposes of 

designation and reporting, is exempt 

from the requirement of paragraph (b) of 

this section to obtain the test result 

required under this section prior to the 

diesel fuel leaving the refinery, 

provided that the refiner obtains 

approval from EPA. The requirement of 

this paragraph (c)(1) that the in-line 

blending equipment must include an 

on-line analyzer test method that is 

approved under the provisions of 

§ 80.580 is effective beginning June 1, 

2006. 

* * * * * 

19. Section 80.583 is amended by 

revising the section heading to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.583 What alternative sampling and 

testing requirements apply to importers 

who transport motor vehicle diesel fuel, 

NRLM diesel fuel, or ECA marine fuel by 

truck or rail car? 

* * * * * 

20. Section 80.584 is amended by 

revising the section heading and adding 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.584 What are the precision and 

accuracy criteria for approval of test 

methods for determining the sulfur content 

of motor vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM diesel 

fuel, and ECA marine fuel? 

(a) * * * 

(3) For ECA marine fuel subject to the 

1,000 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k), of a standard deviation less 

than 18.07 ppm, computed from the 

results of a minimum of 20 repeat tests 

made over 20 days on samples taken 

from a single homogeneous 

commercially available diesel fuel with 

a sulfur content in the range of 700– 

1,000 ppm. The 20 results must be a 

series of tests with a sequential record 

of the analyses and no omissions. A 

laboratory facility may exclude a given 

sample or test result only if the 

exclusion is for a valid reason under 

good laboratory practices and it 

maintains records regarding the sample 

and test results and the reason for 

excluding them. 

(b) * * * 

(3) For ECA marine fuel subject to the 

1,000 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k): 

(i) The arithmetic average of a 

continuous series of at least 10 tests 

performed on a commercially available 

gravimetric sulfur standard in the range 

of 300–400 ppm sulfur shall not differ 

from the ARV of that standard by more 

than 13.55 ppm sulfur; 

(ii) The arithmetic average of a 

continuous series of at least 10 tests 

performed on a commercially available 

gravimetric sulfur standard in the range 

of 900–1,000 ppm sulfur shall not differ 

from the ARV of that standard by more 

than 13.55 ppm sulfur; and 

(iii) In applying the tests of 

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, individual test results shall be 

compensated for any known chemical 

interferences. 

21. Section 80.585 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.585 What is the process for approval 

of a test method for determining the sulfur 

content of diesel or ECA marine fuel? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Follow paragraph 7.3.1 of ASTM D 

6299–02 to check standards using a 

reference material at least monthly or 

following any major change to the 

laboratory equipment or test procedure. 

Any deviation from the accepted 

reference value of a check standard 

greater than 1.44 ppm (for diesel fuel 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard), 

19.36 ppm (for diesel fuel subject to the 

500 ppm sulfur standard), or 36.14 ppm 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44522 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(for ECA marine fuel subject to the 1,000 

ppm sulfur standard must be 

investigated. 

* * * * * 

(4) Upon discovery of any quality 

control testing violation of paragraph A 

1.5.1.3 or A 1.5.2.1 of ASTM D 6299– 

02, or any check standard deviation 

greater than 1.44 ppm (for diesel fuel 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard), 

19.36 ppm (for diesel fuel subject to the 

500 ppm sulfur standard), or 36.14 ppm 

(for ECA marine fuel subject to the 1,000 

ppm sulfur standard), conduct an 

investigation into the cause of such 

violation or deviation and, after 

restoring method performance to 

statistical control, retest retained 

samples from batches originally tested 

since the last satisfactory quality control 

material or check standard testing 

occasion. 

22. Section 80.590 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading. 

b. By revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text, (a)(5), (a)(6) 

introductory text, and (a)(6)(ii). 

c. By adding paragraph (a)(7)(vii). 

d. By redesignating paragraphs (e) 

through (i) as paragraphs (f) through (j), 

respectively. 

e. By adding a new paragraph (e). 

§ 80.590 What are the product transfer 

document requirements for motor vehicle 

diesel fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, heating oil, 

ECA marine fuel, and other distillates? 

(a) This paragraph (a) applies on each 

occasion that any person transfers 

custody or title to MVNRLM diesel fuel, 

heating oil, or ECA marine fuel 

(including distillates used or intended 

to be used as MVNRLM diesel fuel, 

heating oil, or ECA marine fuel) except 

when such fuel is dispensed into motor 

vehicles or nonroad, locomotive, or 

marine equipment or C3 vessels. Note 

that 40 CFR part 1043 specifies 

requirements for documenting fuel 

transfers to certain marine vessels. For 

all fuel transfers subject to this 

paragraph (a), the transferor must 

provide to the transferee documents 

which include the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(5) For transfers of MVNRLM diesel 

fuel or ECA marine fuel (beginning June 

1, 2014), the sulfur content standard the 

transferor represents the fuel to meet. 

(6) Beginning June 1, 2006, when an 

entity, from a facility at any point in the 

distribution system, transfers custody of 

a distillate or residual fuel designated 

under § 80.598, the following 

information must also be included: 

* * * * * 

(ii) An accurate and clear statement of 

the applicable designation and/or 

classification under § 80.598(a) and (b), 

for example, ‘‘500 ppm sulfur NRLM 

diesel fuel’’, or ‘‘jet fuel’’; and whether 

the fuel is dyed or undyed, and for 

heating oil, whether marked or 

unmarked where applicable. 

(7) * * * 

(vii) ECA marine fuel. For ECA 

marine fuel produced or imported 

beginning June 1, 2014, ‘‘1,000 ppm 

sulfur (maximum) ECA marine fuel. For 

use in Category 3 marine vessels only. 

Not for use in engines not installed on 

C3 marine vessels.’’ 

* * * * * 

(e) Beginning June 1, 2014. For ECA 

marine fuel only (except for transfers to 

truck carriers, retailers or wholesale 

purchaser-consumers), product codes 

may be used to convey the information 

required under this section if such 

codes are clearly understood by each 

transferee. ‘‘1000’’ must appear clearly 

on the product transfer document, and 

may be contained in the product code. 

If the designation is included in the 

code, codes used to convey the 

statement in paragraph (a)(7)(vii) of this 

section must contain the number 

‘‘1000’’. If another letter, number, or 

symbol is being used to convey the 

statement in paragraph (a)(7)(vii) of this 

section, it must be clearly defined and 

denoted on the product transfer 

document. 

* * * * * 

23. Section 80.593 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.593 What are the reporting 

requirements for refiners and importers of 

motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to 

temporary refiner relief standards? 

Beginning with 2006, or the first 

compliance period during which credits 

are generated under § 80.531(b) or (c), 

whichever is earlier, any refiner or 

importer who produces or imports 

motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the 

500 ppm sulfur standard under 

§ 80.520(c), or any refiner or importer 

who generates, uses, obtains, or 

transfers credits under §§ 80.530 

through 80.532, and continuing for each 

year thereafter, must submit to EPA 

annual reports that contain the 

information required in this section, and 

such other information as EPA may 

require: 

* * * * * 

24. Section 80.597 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) 

and adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.597 What are the registration 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(c) Registration for ECA marine fuel. 

Refiners and importers that intend to 

produce or supply ECA marine fuel 

beginning June 1, 2014, must provide 

EPA the information under § 80.76 no 

later than December 31, 2012, if such 

information has not been previously 

provided under the provisions of this 

part. In addition, for each import 

facility, the same identifying 

information as required for each refinery 

under § 80.76(c) must be provided. 

(d) Entity registration. (1) Except as 

prescribed in paragraph (d)(6) of this 

section, each entity as defined in 

§ 80.502 that intends to deliver or 

receive custody of any of the following 

fuels from June 1, 2006 through May 31, 

2010 must register with EPA by 

December 31, 2005 or six months prior 

to commencement of producing, 

importing, or distributing any distillate 

listed in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through 

(d)(1)(iii) of this section: 

(i) Fuel designated as 500 ppm sulfur 

MVNRLM diesel fuel under § 80.598 on 

which taxes have not been assessed 

pursuant to IRS code (26 CFR part 48). 

(ii) Fuel designated as 15 ppm sulfur 

MVNRLM diesel fuel under § 80.598 on 

which taxes have not been assessed 

pursuant to IRS code (26 CFR part 48). 

(iii) Fuel designated as NRLM diesel 

fuel under § 80.598 that is undyed 

pursuant to § 80.520. 

(iv) Fuel designated as California 

Diesel fuel under § 80.598 on which 

taxes have not been assessed and red 

dye has not been added (if required) 

pursuant to IRS code (26 CFR part 48) 

and that is delivered by pipeline to a 

terminal outside of the State of 

California pursuant to the provisions of 

§ 80.617(b). 

(2) Except as prescribed in paragraph 

(d)(6) of this section, each entity as 

defined in § 80.502 that intends to 

deliver or receive custody of any of the 

following fuels from June 1, 2007 

through May 31, 2014 must register with 

EPA by December 31, 2005 or six 

months prior to commencement of 

producing, importing, or distributing 

any distillate listed in paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section: 

(i) Fuel designated as 500 ppm sulfur 

MVNRLM diesel fuel under § 80.598 on 

which taxes have not been assessed 

pursuant to IRS code (26 CFR part 48). 

(ii) Fuel designated as NRLM diesel 

fuel under § 80.598 that is undyed 

pursuant to § 80.520. 

(iii) Fuel designated as heating oil 

under § 80.598 that is unmarked 

pursuant to § 80.510(d) through (f). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44523 

(iv) Fuel designated as LM diesel fuel 

under § 80.598(a)(2)(iii) that is 

unmarked pursuant to § 80.510(e). 

(3) Except as prescribed in paragraph 

(d)(6) of this section, each entity as 

defined in § 80.502 that intends to 

deliver or receive custody of any of the 

following fuels beginning June 1, 2014 

must register with EPA by December 31, 

2012 or prior to commencement of 

producing, importing, or distributing 

any distillate or residual fuel listed in 

this paragraph (d): 

(i) Fuel designated as 1,000 ppm 

sulfur ECA marine fuel under § 80.598. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(4) Registration shall be on forms 

prescribed by the Administrator, and 

shall include the name, business 

address, contact name, telephone 

number, e-mail address, and type of 

production, importation, or distribution 

activity or activities engaged in by the 

entity. 

(5) Registration shall include the 

information required under paragraph 

(e) of this section for each facility 

owned or operated by the entity that 

delivers or receives custody of a fuel 

described in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), 

and (d)(3) of this section. 

(6) Exceptions for Excluded Liquids. 

An entity that would otherwise be 

required to register pursuant to the 

requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (3) of this section is exempted 

from the registration requirements 

under this section provided that: 

(i) The only diesel fuel or heating oil 

that the entity delivers or receives on 

which taxes have not been assessed or 

which is not received dyed pursuant to 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 26 

CFR part 48 is an excluded liquid as 

defined pursuant to IRS code 26 CFR 

4081–1(b). 

(ii) The entity does not transfer the 

excluded liquid to a facility which 

delivers or receives diesel fuel other 

than an excluded liquid on which taxes 

have not been assessed pursuant to IRS 

code (26 CFR part 48). 

(e) Facility registration. (1) List for 

each separate facility of an entity 

required to register under paragraph (d) 

of this section, the facility name, 

physical location, contact name, 

telephone number, e-mail address and 

type of facility. For facilities that are 

aggregated under § 80.502, provide 

information regarding the nature and 

location of each of the components. If 

aggregation is changed for any 

subsequent compliance period, the 

entity must provide notice to EPA prior 

to the beginning of such compliance 

period. 

(2) If facility records are kept off-site, 

list the off-site storage facility name, 

physical location, contact name, and 

telephone number. 

(3) Mobile facilities: (i) A description 

shall be provided in the registration 

detailing the types of mobile vessels that 

will likely be included and the nature 

of the operations. 

(ii) Entities may combine all mobile 

operations into one facility; or may split 

the operations by vessel, region, route, 

waterway, etc. and register separate 

mobile facilities for each. 

(iii) The specific vessels need not be 

identified in the registration, however 

information regarding specific vessel 

contracts shall be maintained by each 

registered entity for its mobile facilities, 

pursuant to § 80.602(d). 

(f) Changes to registration 

information. Any company or entity 

shall submit updated registration 

information to the Administrator within 

30 days of any occasion when the 

registration information previously 

supplied for an entity, or any of its 

registered facilities, becomes incomplete 

or inaccurate. 

(g) Issuance of registration numbers. 

EPA will supply a registration number 

to each entity and a facility registration 

number to each of an entity’s facilities 

that is identified, which shall be used in 

all reports to the Administrator. 

25. Section 80.598 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A), 

(a)(2)(i)(B), (a)(2)(i)(C), (a)(2)(i)(D), 

(a)(2)(i)(E), and (a)(2)(i)(F). 

b. By adding paragraph (a)(2)(i)(H). 

c. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(v). 

d. By adding paragraph (a)(3)(xv). 

e. By revising paragraphs (b)(4)(i), 

(b)(4)(ii), (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii), (b)(8) 

introductory text, (b)(8)(i), (b)(8)(ii), 

(b)(9)(ii), (b)(9)(vii), and (b)(9)(x). 

f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (e). 

§ 80.598 What are the designation 

requirements for refiners, importers, and 

distributors? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Motor vehicle, nonroad, 

locomotive or marine (MVNRLM) diesel 

fuel. 

(B) Heating oil. 

(C) Jet fuel. 

(D) Kerosene. 

(E) No. 4 fuel. 

(F) Distillate fuel for export only. 

* * * * * 

(H) ECA marine fuel. This designation 

may be used beginning June 1, 2014, 

and fuel designated as such is subject to 

the restriction in paragraph (a)(3)(xv) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(v) From June 1, 2006 through May 

31, 2010, any batch designated as motor 

vehicle diesel fuel must also be 

designated according to one of the 

following distillation classifications that 

most accurately represents the fuel: 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xv) Beginning June 1, 2014, any fuel 

designated as ECA marine fuel will be 

subject to all the following restrictions: 

(A) Such fuel may not exceed a sulfur 

level of 1,000 ppm. 

(B) Such fuel may only be produced, 

distributed, sold, and purchased for use 

in C3 marine vessels. 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) #1D 500 ppm sulfur motor vehicle 

diesel fuel. 

(ii) #2D 500 ppm sulfur motor vehicle 

diesel fuel. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) 500 ppm sulfur NRLM diesel fuel. 

(ii) Heating oil. 

* * * * * 

(8) Beginning June 1, 2014, whenever 

custody of a batch of distillate or 

residual fuel (other than jet fuel, 

kerosene, No. 4 fuel, fuel for export, or 

fuel intended for use outside an ECA) 

having a sulfur content greater than 15 

ppm is transferred to another facility, 

the entity transferring custody must 

accurately and clearly designate the 

batch as one of the following and 

specify its volume: 

(i) ECA marine fuel. 

(ii) Heating oil. 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(ii) Until June 1, 2014, any distillate 

fuel containing greater than or equal to 

0.10 milligrams per liter of marker 

solvent yellow 124 required under 

§ 80.510(d), (e), or (f) must be designated 

as heating oil except that from June 1, 

2010 through October 1, 2012 it may 

also be designated as LM diesel fuel as 

specified under § 80.510(e). 

* * * * * 

(viii) For facilities in areas other than 

those specified in § 80.510(g)(1) and (2), 

batches or portions of batches of 

unmarked distillate received designated 

as heating oil may be re-designated as 

NRLM or LM diesel fuel only if all the 

following restrictions are met: 

(A) From June 1, 2007 through May 

31, 2010, for any compliance period, the 

volume of high sulfur NRLM diesel fuel 

delivered from a facility cannot be 

greater than the volume received, unless 

the volume of heating oil delivered from 

the facility is also greater than the 

volume it received by an equal or 

greater proportion, as calculated in 

§ 80.599(c)(2). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44524 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(B) From June 1, 2010 through May 

31, 2014, for any compliance period, the 

volume of fuel designated as heating oil 

delivered from a facility cannot be less 

than the volume of fuel designated as 

heating oil received, as calculated in 

§ 80.599(c)(4). 

* * * * * 

(x) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (b)(5) and (8) of this section, 

beginning October 1, 2007: 

* * * * * 

(e) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

26. Section 80.599 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a)(1). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(2). 

c. By revising paragraph (e)(4). 

§ 80.599 How do I calculate volume 

balances for designation purposes? 

(a) * * * 

(1) The annual compliance periods 

before the period beginning July 1, 2016 

are shown in the following table: 

Beginning date of 

annual compliance 

period 

Ending date of annual 

compliance period 

June 1, 2006 ............. May 31, 2007. 

June 1, 2007 ............. June 30, 2008. 

July 1, 2008 .............. June 30, 2009. 

July 1, 2009 .............. May 31, 2010. 

June 1, 2010 ............. June 30, 2011. 

July 1, 2011 .............. May 31, 2012. 

June 1, 2012 ............. June 30, 2013. 

July 1, 2013 .............. May 31, 2014. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) The following calculation may be 

used to account for wintertime blending 

of kerosene and the blending of nonpetroleum diesel: 

#2MV500O< = #2MV500I + #2MV500P

¥ #2MV500INVCHG + 0.2 * 

(#1MV15I + #2MV15I + NPMV15I) 

Where: 

#1MV15I = the total volume of fuel received 

during the compliance period that is 

designated as #1D 15 ppm sulfur motor 

vehicle diesel fuel. Any motor vehicle 

diesel fuel produced by or imported into 

the facility shall not be included in this 

volume. 

NPMV15I = the total volume of fuel received 

during the compliance period that is 

designated as NP15 ppm sulfur motor 

vehicle diesel fuel. Any motor vehicle 

diesel fuel produced by or imported into 

the facility shall not be included in this 

volume. 

#1MV15P = the total volume of fuel produced 

by or imported into the facility during 

the compliance period that was 

designated as #1D 15 ppm sulfur motor 

vehicle diesel fuel when it was 

delivered. 

* * * * * 

27. Section 80.600 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraphs (a)(5) and 

(a)(12). 

b. By revising paragraphs (b)(1)(v) and 

(b)(3). 

c. By revising paragraph (i). 

d. By revising paragraphs (o)(1) and 

(o)(2). 

§ 80.600 What records must be kept for 

purposes of the designate and track 

provisions? 

(a) * * * 

(5) Any refiner or importer shall 

maintain the records specified in 

paragraphs (a)(6) through (10) of this 

section for each batch of distillate or 

residual fuel that it transfers custody of 

and designates from June 1, 2014 and 

later as any of the following categories: 

(i) Heating oil. 

(ii) ECA marine fuel. 

* * * * * 

(12) Records must be maintained that 

demonstrate compliance with a refiner’s 

compliance plan required under 

§ 80.554, for distillate fuel designated as 

high sulfur NRLM diesel fuel and 

delivered from June 1, 2007 through 

May 31, 2010, for distillate fuel 

designated as 500 ppm sulfur NR diesel 

fuel and delivered from June 1, 2010 

through May 31, 2012, and for distillate 

fuel designated as 500 ppm sulfur 

NRLM diesel fuel and delivered from 

June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2014 in 

the areas specified in § 80.510(g)(2). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) For each facility that receives fuel 

designated as heating oil, records for 

each batch of distillate or residual fuel 

with any of the following designations 

for which custody is received or 

delivered as well as any batches 

produced from June 1, 2014 and 

beyond: 

(A) 1,000 ppm sulfur ECA marine 

fuel. 

(B) Heating oil. 

* * * * * 

(3) Records that clearly and accurately 

identify the total volume in gallons of 

each designated fuel identified under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

transferred over each of the compliance 

periods, and over the periods from June 

1, 2006 to the end of each compliance 

period. The records shall be maintained 

separately for each fuel designated 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

and for each EPA entity and facility 

registration number from whom the fuel 

was received or to whom it was 

delivered. For batches of fuel received 

from facilities without an EPA facility 

registration number: 

(i) Any batches of fuel received 

marked pursuant to § 80.510(d) or (f) 

shall be deemed designated as heating 

oil. 

(ii) Any batches of fuel received 

marked pursuant to § 80.510(e) shall be 

deemed designated as heating oil or LM 

diesel fuel. 

(iii) Any batches of fuel received on 

which taxes have been paid pursuant to 

Section 4082 of the Internal Revenue 

Code (26 U.S.C. 4082) shall be deemed 

designated as motor vehicle diesel fuel. 

(iv) Any 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel 

dyed pursuant to § 80.520(b) and not 

marked pursuant to § 80.510(d) or (f) 

shall be deemed designated as NRLM 

diesel fuel. 

(v) Any diesel fuel with less than or 

equal to 500 ppm sulfur which is dyed 

pursuant to § 80.520(b) and not marked 

pursuant to § 80.510(e) shall be deemed 

to be NR diesel fuel. 

(vi) Beginning June 1, 2014, any 

batches of fuel with greater than 15 ppm 

sulfur, but less than or equal to 1,000 

ppm sulfur, and not designated as 

heating oil shall be deemed to be 1,000 

ppm ECA marine fuel. 

* * * * * 

(i) Additional records that must be 

kept by mobile facilities. Any registered 

mobile facility must keep records of all 

contracts from any contracted 

components (e.g., tank truck, barge, 

marine tanker, rail car, etc.) in each of 

its registered mobile facilities. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(1) Any aggregated facility consisting 

of a refinery and truck loading terminal 

shall maintain records of all the 

following information for each batch of 

distillate fuel (and/or residual fuel with 

a sulfur level of 1,000 ppm or less that 

is intended for use in an ECA) produced 

by the refinery and sent over the 

aggregated facility’s truck loading 

terminal rack: 

(i) The batch volume. 

(ii) The batch number, assigned under 

the batch numbering procedures under 

§§ 80.65(d)(3) and 80.502(d)(1). 

(iii) The date of production. 

(iv) A record designating the batch as 

distillate or residual fuel meeting the 

500 ppm, 15 ppm, or 1,000 ppm ECA 

marine sulfur standard. 

(v) A record indicating the volumes 

that were either taxed, dyed, or dyed 

and marked. 

(2) Volume reports for all distillate 

fuel (and/or residual fuel with a sulfur 

level of 1,000 ppm or less that is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44525 

intended for use in an ECA) from 

external sources (i.e., from another 

refiner or importer), as described in 

§ 80.601(f)(2), sent over the aggregated 

facility’s truck rack. 

28. Section 80.601 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3)(x) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.601 What are the reporting 

requirements for purposes of the designate 

and track provisions? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(x) Beginning with the report due 

August 31, 2011 and ending with the 

report due August 31, 2012, the volume 

balance under §§ 80.598(b)(9)(ix) and 

80.599(d)(2). 

* * * * * 

29. Section 80.602 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading. 

b. By revising paragraphs (a) 

introductory text, (a)(2) introductory 

text, and (a)(3). 

c. By revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii). 

d. By revising paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2). 

§ 80.602 What records must be kept by 

entities in the NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine 

fuel, and diesel fuel additive production, 

importation, and distribution systems? 

(a) Records that must be kept by 

parties in the NRLM diesel fuel, ECA 

marine fuel and diesel fuel additive 

production, importation, and 

distribution systems. Beginning June 1, 

2007, or June 1, 2006, if that is the first 

period credits are generated under 

§ 80.535, any person who produces, 

imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses, 

distributes, supplies, offers for supply, 

stores, or transports nonroad, 

locomotive or marine diesel fuel, or 

ECA marine fuel (beginning June 1, 

2014) subject to the provisions of this 

subpart, must keep all the following 

records: 

* * * * * 

(2) For any sampling and testing for 

sulfur content for a batch of NRLM 

diesel fuel produced or imported and 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard or 

any sampling and testing for sulfur 

content as part of a quality assurance 

testing program, and any sampling and 

testing for cetane index, aromatics 

content, marker solvent yellow 124 

content or dye solvent red 164 content 

of NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, 

NRLM diesel fuel additives or heating 

oil: 

* * * * * 

(3) The actions the party has taken, if 

any, to stop the sale or distribution of 

any NRLM diesel fuel or ECA marine 

fuel found not to be in compliance with 

the sulfur standards specified in this 

subpart, and the actions the party has 

taken, if any, to identify the cause of any 

noncompliance and prevent future 

instances of noncompliance. 

(b) Additional records to be kept by 

refiners and importers of NRLM diesel 

fuel and ECA marine fuel. Beginning 

June 1, 2007, or June 1, 2006, pursuant 

to the provisions of § 80.535 or 

§ 80.554(d) (or June 1, 2014, pursuant to 

the provisions of § 80.510(k)), any 

refiner producing distillate or residual 

fuel subject to a sulfur standard under 

§ 80.510, § 80.513, § 80.536, § 80.554, 

§ 80.560, or § 80.561, for each of its 

refineries, and any importer importing 

such fuel separately for each facility, 

shall keep records that include the 

following information for each batch of 

NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, or 

heating oil produced or imported: 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) NRLM diesel fuel, NR diesel fuel, 

LM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, or 

heating oil, as applicable. 

(ii) Meeting the 500 ppm sulfur 

standard of § 80.510(a), the 15 ppm 

sulfur standard of § 80.510(b) and (c), 

the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k), or other applicable 

standard. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) All the following information for 

each batch of distillate fuel (or residual 

fuel with a sulfur level of 1,000 ppm or 

less if such fuel is intended for use in 

an ECA) produced by the refinery and 

sent over the aggregated facility’s truck 

rack: 

(i) The batch volume. 

(ii) The batch number, assigned under 

the batch numbering procedures under 

§§ 80.65(d)(3) and 80.502(d)(1). 

(iii) The date of production. 

(iv) A record designating the batch as 

one of the following: 

(A) NRLM diesel fuel, NR diesel fuel, 

LM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, or 

heating oil, as applicable. 

(B) Meeting the 500 ppm sulfur 

standard of § 80.510(a), the 15 ppm 

sulfur standard of § 80.510(b) and (c), 

the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(k), or other applicable 

standard. 

(C) Dyed or undyed with visible 

evidence of solvent red 164. 

(D) Marked or unmarked with solvent 

yellow 124. 

(2) Hand-off reports for all distillate 

fuel (or residual fuel with a sulfur level 

of 1,000 ppm or less if such fuel is 

intended for use in an ECA) from 

external sources (i.e., from another 

refiner or importer), as described in 

§ 80.601(f)(2). 

30. Section 80.606 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading. 

b. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraph (a)(1). 

c. By revising paragraph (b). 

d. By adding paragraph (c). 

§ 80.606 What national security exemption 

applies to fuels covered under this 

subpart? 

(a) The standards of all the fuels listed 

in paragraph (b) of this section do not 

apply to fuel that is produced, imported, 

sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered 

for supply, stored, dispensed, or 

transported for use in any of the 

following: 

(1) Tactical military motor vehicles or 

tactical military nonroad engines, 

vehicles or equipment, including 

locomotive and marine, having an EPA 

national security exemption from the 

motor vehicle emissions standards 

under 40 CFR 85.1708, or from the 

nonroad engine emission standards 

under 40 CFR part 89, 92, 94, or 1068. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) The motor vehicle diesel fuel 

standards of § 80.520(a)(1), (a)(2), and 

(c). 

(2) The nonroad, locomotive, and 

marine diesel fuel standards of 

§ 80.510(a), (b), and (c). 

(3) The 1,000 ppm ECA marine fuel 

standards of § 80.510(k). 

(c) The exempt fuel must meet all the 

following conditions: 

(1) It must be accompanied by 

product transfer documents as required 

under § 80.590. 

(2) It must be segregated from nonexempt MVNRLM diesel fuel and ECA 

marine fuel at all points in the 

distribution system. 

(3) It must be dispensed from a fuel 

pump stand, fueling truck or tank that 

is labeled with the appropriate 

designation of the fuel, such as ‘‘JP–5’’ 

or ‘‘JP–8’’. 

(4) It may not be used in any motor 

vehicles or nonroad engines, equipment 

or vehicles, including locomotive and 

marine, other than the vehicles, engines, 

and equipment referred to in paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

31. Section 80.607 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the section heading. 

b. By revising paragraph (a). 

c. By revising paragraphs (c)(3)(iv) 

and (c)(4). 

d. By revising paragraphs (d)(2), 

(d)(3), and (d)(4). 

e. By revising paragraph (e)(1). 

f. By revising paragraph (f). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44526 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

§ 80.607 What are the requirements for 

obtaining an exemption for diesel fuel or 

ECA marine fuel used for research, 

development or testing purposes? 

(a) Written request for a research and 

development exemption. Any person 

may receive an exemption from the 

provisions of this subpart for diesel fuel 

or ECA marine fuel used for research, 

development, or testing purposes by 

submitting the information listed in 

paragraph (c) of this section to: Director, 

Transportation and Regional Programs 

Division (6406J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 

(postal mail); or Director, Transportation 

and Regional Programs Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1310 

L Street, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20005 (express mail/courier); and 

Director, Air Enforcement Division 

(2242A), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) The quantity of fuel which does 

not comply with the requirements of 

§§ 80.520 and 80.521 for motor vehicle 

diesel fuel, or § 80.510 for NRLM diesel 

fuel or ECA marine fuel. 

(4) With regard to control, a 

demonstration that the program affords 

EPA a monitoring capability, including 

all the following: 

(i) The site(s) of the program 

(including facility name, street address, 

city, county, state, and zip code). 

(ii) The manner in which information 

on vehicles and engines used in the 

program will be recorded and made 

available to the Administrator upon 

request. 

(iii) The manner in which information 

on the fuel used in the program 

(including quantity, fuel properties, 

name, address, telephone number and 

contact person of the supplier, and the 

date received from the supplier), will be 

recorded and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. 

(iv) The manner in which the party 

will ensure that the research and 

development fuel will be segregated 

from motor vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM 

diesel fuel, or ECA marine fuel, as 

applicable, and how fuel pumps will be 

labeled to ensure proper use of the 

research and development fuel. 

(v) The name, address, telephone 

number and title of the person(s) in the 

organization requesting an exemption 

from whom further information on the 

application may be obtained. 

(vi) The name, address, telephone 

number and title of the person(s) in the 

organization requesting an exemption 

who is responsible for recording and 

making available the information 

specified in this paragraph (c), and the 

location where such information will be 

maintained. 

(d) * * * 

(2) The research and development 

fuel must be designated by the refiner or 

supplier, as applicable, as research and 

development fuel. 

(3) The research and development 

fuel must be kept segregated from nonexempt MVNRLM diesel fuel and ECA 

marine fuel at all points in the 

distribution system. 

(4) The research and development 

fuel must not be sold, distributed, 

offered for sale or distribution, 

dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, 

transported to or from, or stored by a 

fuel retail outlet, or by a wholesale 

purchaser-consumer facility, unless the 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facility 

is associated with the research and 

development program that uses the fuel. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The volume of fuel subject to the 

approval shall not exceed the estimated 

amount under paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of 

this section, unless EPA grants a greater 

amount in writing. 

* * * * * 

(f) Effects of exemption. Motor vehicle 

diesel fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, or ECA 

marine fuel that is subject to a research 

and development exemption under this 

section is exempt from other provisions 

of this subpart provided that the fuel is 

used in a manner that complies with the 

purpose of the program under paragraph 

(c) of this section and the requirements 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

32. Section 80.608 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.608 What requirements apply to 

diesel fuel and ECA marine fuel for use in 

the Territories? 

The sulfur standards of § 80.520(a)(1) 

and (c) related to motor vehicle diesel 

fuel, of § 80.510(a), (b), and (c) related 

to NRLM diesel fuel, and of § 80.510(k) 

related to ECA marine fuel, do not apply 

to fuel that is produced, imported, sold, 

offered for sale, supplied, offered for 

supply, stored, dispensed, or 

transported for use in the Territories of 

Guam, American Samoa or the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, provided that such diesel fuel is 

all of the following: 

(a) Designated by the refiner or 

importer as high sulfur diesel fuel only 

for use in Guam, American Samoa, or 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

(b) Used only in Guam, American 

Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 

(c) Accompanied by documentation 

that complies with the product transfer 

document requirements of 

§ 80.590(b)(1). 

(d) Segregated from non-exempt 

MVNRLM diesel fuel and/or nonexempt ECA marine fuel at all points in 

the distribution system from the point 

the fuel is designated as exempt fuel 

only for use in Guam, American Samoa, 

or the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, while the exempt fuel 

is in the United States (or the United 

States Emission Control Area) but 

outside these Territories. 

33. Section 80.610 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a)(1) and 

adding paragraph (a)(4). 

b. By revising paragraph (b). 

c. By revising paragraph (c). 

d. By revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii) 

and (e)(4)(iii) and adding paragraph 

(e)(6). 

e. By revising paragraph (g). 

§ 80.610 What acts are prohibited under 

the diesel fuel sulfur program? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Produce, import, sell, offer for sale, 

dispense, supply, offer for supply, store 

or transport motor vehicle diesel fuel, 

NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel or 

heating oil that does not comply with 

the applicable standards, dye, marking 

or any other product requirements 

under this subpart I and 40 CFR part 69. 

* * * * * 

(4) Beginning June 1, 2014, produce, 

import, sell, offer for sale, dispense, 

supply, offer for supply, store or 

transport any fuel with a sulfur content 

above 1,000 ppm for use in an ECA or 

U.S. internal waters. 

(b) Designation and volume balance 

violation. Produce, import, sell, offer for 

sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, 

store or transport motor vehicle diesel 

fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine 

fuel, heating oil or other fuel that does 

not comply with the applicable 

designation or volume balance 

requirements under §§ 80.598 and 

80.599. 

(c) Additive violation. (1) Produce, 

import, sell, offer for sale, dispense, 

supply, offer for supply, store or 

transport any fuel additive for use at a 

downstream location that does not 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of § 80.521. 

(2) Blend or permit the blending into 

motor vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM diesel 

fuel, or ECA marine fuel at a 

downstream location, or use, or permit 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44527 

the use, in motor vehicle diesel fuel, 

NRLM diesel fuel, or ECA marine fuel, 

of any additive that does not comply 

with the applicable requirements of 

§ 80.521. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) This prohibition begins December 

1, 2014 in all other areas. 

(4) * * * 

(iii) This prohibition begins December 

1, 2014 in all other areas. 

* * * * * 

(6) Beginning January 1, 2015 

introduce (or permit the introduction of) 

any fuel with a sulfur content greater 

than 1,000 ppm for use in a Category 3 

marine vessel within an ECA or U.S. 

internal waters. 

* * * * * 

(g) Cause violating fuel or additive to 

be in the distribution system. Cause 

motor vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM diesel 

fuel, or ECA marine fuel to be in the 

diesel fuel distribution system which 

does not comply with the applicable 

standard, dye or marker requirements or 

the product segregation requirements of 

this Subpart I, or cause any fuel additive 

to be in the fuel additive distribution 

system which does not comply with the 

applicable sulfur standards under 

§ 80.521. 

34. Section 80.612 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 80.612 Who is liable for violations of this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) Persons liable for failure to comply 

with other provisions of this subpart. 

Any person who: 

* * * * * 

35. Section 80.613 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1)(iv) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 80.613 What defenses apply to persons 

deemed liable for a violation of a prohibited 

act under this subpart? 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) For refiners and importers of 

diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur 

standard under § 80.510(b) or (c) or 

§ 80.520(a)(1), the 500 ppm sulfur 

standard under § 80.510(a) or 

§ 80.520(c), and/or the 1,000 ppm sulfur 

standard under § 80.510(k), test results 

that— 

* * * * * 

36. Section 80.615 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.615 What penalties apply under this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Any person liable under 

§ 80.612(a)(2) for causing motor vehicle 

diesel fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, ECA 

marine fuel, heating oil, or other 

distillate fuel to be in the distribution 

system which does not comply with an 

applicable standard or requirement of 

this Subpart I is subject to a separate 

day of violation for each and every day 

that the non-complying fuel remains 

any place in the diesel fuel distribution 

system. 

* * * * * 

(4) For purposes of this paragraph (b): 

(i) The length of time the motor 

vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, 

ECA marine fuel, heating oil, or other 

distillate fuel in question remained in 

the diesel fuel distribution system is 

deemed to be 25 days, except as further 

specified in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this 

section. 

(ii) The length of time is deemed not 

to be 25 days if a person subject to 

liability demonstrates by reasonably 

specific showings, by direct or 

circumstantial evidence, that the noncomplying motor vehicle, NR diesel 

fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine 

fuel, heating oil, or distillate fuel 

remained in the distribution system for 

fewer than or more than 25 days. 

* * * * * 

PART 85— CONTROL OF AIR 

POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

37. The authority citation for part 85 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart R—[Amended] 

38. Section 85.1703 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 85.1703 Definition of motor vehicle. 

(a) For the purpose of determining the 

applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle 

which is self-propelled and capable of 

transporting a person or persons or any 

material or any permanently or 

temporarily affixed apparatus shall be 

deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one 

or more of the criteria set forth below 

are met, in which case the vehicle shall 

be deemed not a motor vehicle and 

excluded from the operation of the Act: 

* * * * * 

39. A new § 85.1715 is added to 

subpart R to read as follows: 

§ 85.1715 Aircraft meeting the definition of 

motor vehicle. 

This section applies for aircraft 

meeting the definition of motor vehicle 

in § 85.1703. 

(a) For the purpose of this section, 

aircraft means any vehicle capable of 

sustained air travel above treetop 

heights. 

(b) The standards, requirements, and 

prohibitions of 40 CFR part 86 do not 

apply for aircraft or aircraft engines. 

Standards apply separately to certain 

aircraft engines, as described in 40 CFR 

part 87. 

Subpart X—[Amended] 

40. A new § 85.2306 is added to 

subpart X to read as follows: 

§ 85.2306 Inventory and stockpiling 

provisions related to new emission 

standards for heavy-duty engines. 

(a) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this subpart, a vehicle 

manufacturer may not sell, offer for sale, 

or introduce or deliver into commerce 

in the United States or import into the 

United States any new heavy-duty 

engine or vehicle equipped with a new 

heavy-duty engine after emission 

standards take effect for that engine or 

vehicle, unless the engine has an 

appropriate certificate of conformity or 

exemption. An appropriate certificate of 

conformity is one that applies for the 

same model year as the model year of 

the vehicle or that shows conformity 

with the same standards as engines 

manufactured in the model year of the 

vehicle (except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section). 

(b) If new emission standards apply in 

a given model year, a new vehicle in 

that model year must be powered by an 

engine that is certified to the new 

standards, except that a manufacturer 

may continue to use up its normal 

inventory of earlier engines that were 

built before the date of the new or 

changed standards. For example, if a 

manufacturer’s normal inventory 

practice is to keep on hand a one-month 

supply of engines based on its 

upcoming production schedule, a 

manufacturer may order engines in 

anticipation of the 2010 emission 

standards based on its normal inventory 

requirements late in the engine 

manufacturer’s 2009 model year and 

install those engines in the 

manufacturer’s vehicle, regardless of the 

date of installation. Also, if an 

equipment manufacturer’s model year 

starts before the end of the calendar year 

preceding new standards, the 

equipment manufacturer may use 

engines from the previous model year 

for equipment produced before January 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1 of the year that new standards apply. 

If emission standards for the engine do 

not change in a given model year, an 

equipment manufacturer may continue 

to install engines from the previous 

model year without restriction. Vehicle 

and engine manufacturers may not 

circumvent the provisions in paragraph 

(a) of this section by stockpiling engines 

(i.e., acquiring more engines than 

normal for inventory) that were built 

before new or changed standards take 

effect or stockpiling engines that 

otherwise fail to have an appropriate 

certificate of conformity as provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section. Note that 

this allowance does not apply for 

vehicles subject to vehicle-based 

standards. 

(c) A heavy-duty engine 

manufacturer, who otherwise produces 

engines covered by an appropriate 

certificate of conformity, may not cause 

or otherwise aid a vehicle manufacturer 

to fail to comply with paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(d) Exemptions from certification 

requirements are described in subpart R 

of this part and apply as appropriate to 

this section. 

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN–USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

41. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

42. Subpart A is amended by 

removing the following sections: 

86.000–15, 86.000–21, 86.000–23, 

86.000–25, 86.001–1, 86.087–38, 

86.090–8, 86.091–10, 86.094–1, 86.094– 

15, 86.094–17, 86.094–23, 86.094–9, 

86.096–9, 86.096–10, 86.096–11, 

86.096–14, 86.096–23, 86.098–7, 

86.098–8, 86.098–11, 86.098–15, 

86.098–17, 86.098–21, 86.098–22, 

86.099–1, 86.099–30. 

§ 86.000–28—[Amended]

43. Section 86.000–28 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(3). 

c. By removing paragraph (a)(4) 

introductory text. 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through 

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(i). 

e. By removing paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(iii) through (a)(4)(i)(D)(2). 

f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B). 

g. By removing paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(C) 

and (a)(4)(iv) through (v). 

h. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(5) through (6). 

i. By removing paragraph (a)(7) 

introductory text. 

j. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(7)(ii) through (b)(4)(i). 

k. By removing paragraphs (b)(7) 

through (h). 

44. Section 86.008–10 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.008–10 Emission standards for 2008 

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) The standards set forth in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section refer to 

the exhaust emitted over the operating 

schedule set forth in paragraph (f)(1) of 

appendix I to this part, and measured 

and calculated in accordance with the 

procedures set forth in subpart N or P 

of this part: 

(i) Perform the test interval set forth 

in paragraph (f)(1) of Appendix I of this 

part with a cold-start according to 40 

CFR part 1065, subpart F. This is the 

cold-start test interval. 

(ii) Shut down the engine after 

completing the test interval and allow 

20 minutes to elapse. This is the hot 

soak. 

(iii) Repeat the test interval. This is 

the hot-start test interval. 

(iv) Calculate the total emission mass 

of each constituent, m, and the total 

work, W, over each test interval 

according to 40 CFR 1065.650. 

(v) Determine your engine’s brakespecific emissions using the following 

calculation, which weights the 

emissions from the cold-start and hotstart test intervals: 

brake-specific emissions = m m

W

cold-start hot-start

cold-s

+ ⋅ 6

tart hot-start + ⋅ 6 W

* * * * * 

45. Section 86.010–38 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (j) introductory text 

and (j)(15)(i) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.010–38 Maintenance instructions. 

* * * * * 

(j) The following provisions describe 

requirements related to emission control 

diagnostic service information for 

heavy-duty engines used in vehicles 

over 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 

(GVW): 

* * * * * 

(15) * * * 

(i) By July 1, 2013, manufacturers 

shall make available for sale to the 

persons specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) 

of this section their own manufacturerspecific diagnostic tools at a fair and 

reasonable cost. These tools shall also 

be made available in a timely fashion 

either through the manufacturer Web 

site or through a manufacturerdesignated intermediary. Upon 

Administrator approval, manufacturers 

will not be required to make available 

manufacturer-specific tools with 

reconfiguration capabilities if they can 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

Administrator that these tools are not 

essential to the completion of an 

emissions-related repair, such as 

recalibration. As a condition of 

purchase, manufacturers may request 

that the purchaser take all necessary 

training offered by the engine 

manufacturer. Any required training 

materials and classes must comply with 

the following: 

* * * * * 

§ 86.091–7—[Amended]

46. Section 86.091–7 is amended by 

removing paragraph (a)(3) and removing 

and reserving paragraphs (c)(3) and 

(d)(2) 

§ 86.094–7—[Amended]

47. Section 86.094–7 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing paragraph (a) 

introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (2), (b) 

through (c)(2), (c)(4) through (d)(1)(v), 

(d)(3) through (g), and (h)(1). 

d. By removing paragraphs (h)(6) and 

(i). 

§ 86.094–14—[Amended]

48. Section 86.094–14 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing paragraph 

(c)(7)(i)(C)(4). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (c)(11)(ii)(B)(1). 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.007</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44529 

c. By removing paragraphs 

(c)(11)(ii)(B)(16) through (18). 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (c)(11)(ii)(C) and 

(c)(11)(ii)(D)(1) through (6) 

§ 86.094–21—[Amended]

49. Section 86.094–21 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(6). 

§ 86.094–22—[Amended]

50. Section 86.094–22 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(1). 

§ 86.094–26—[Amended]

51. Section 86.094–26 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(2). 

b. By removing the text of paragraphs 

(a)(3) introductory text and (a)(3)(i) 

introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A), (a)(3)(i)(C), 

(a)(3)(ii)(C), and (a)(4)(i)(C). 

d. By removing paragraph (a)(6)(iii). 

e. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(9)(ii) and (b)(2)(i) through 

(ii). 

f. By removing paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) 

and (b)(4)(i)(C) through (D). 

g. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(4)(ii), (c), and (d)(2)(ii). 

§ 86.094–28—[Amended]

52. Section 86.094–28 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (2). 

b. By removing the text of paragraphs 

(a)(4) introductory text and (a)(4)(i) 

introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii). 

d. By removing paragraph (a)(4)(i)(C). 

e. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii) and(iii). 

f. By removing paragraph (a)(4)(v). 

g. By removing the text of paragraph 

(a)(7) introductory text. 

h. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(7)(i), (b)(1) through (2), 

and (b)(4)(ii). 

i. By removing paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) 

through (iv), (b)(5) through (8), and (c) 

through (d). 

§ 86.094–30—[Amended]

53. Section 86.094–30 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)(i) through 

(ii). 

b. By removing the text of paragraph 

(a)(4)(iv) introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(10) through (11), (a)(13), 

(b)(1)(ii)(B), (b)(1)(ii)(D), and (b)(2). 

d. By removing the text of paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii) introductory text. 

e. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(B). 

f. By removing paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) 

through (iv) and (f). 

§ 86.095–14—[Amended]

54. Section 86.095–14 is amended by 

removing the introductory text and 

removing and reserving paragraphs (a) 

through (c)(11)(ii)(B)(15) and 

(c)(11)(ii)(D)(7) through (c)(15). 

§ 86.095–23—[Amended]

55. Section 86.095–23 is amended to 

read as follows: 

a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a) and (b). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (c)(2). 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (d) and (e). 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (h) through (k). 

§ 86.095–26—[Amended]

56. Section 86.095–26 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a) through (b)(4)(i)(C) and 

(b)(4)(ii)(C). 

c. By removing paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) 

through (d). 

§ 86.095–30—[Amended]

57. Section 86.095–30 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) and 

(a)(4)(i) through (iii). 

c. By removing paragraphs 

(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (C). 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(5) through (12). 

e. By removing paragraph (a)(14). 

f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b). 

g. By removing paragraphs (c) through 

(f). 

§ 86.095–35—[Amended]

58. Section 86.095–35 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing the text of paragraph 

(a)(2) introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (ii). 

d. By removing the text of paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) introductory text. 

e. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) and 

(c). 

§ 86.096–7—[Amended]

59. Section 86.096–7 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a) through (h) (5). 

c. By removing the text of paragraph 

(h)(6) introductory text. 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (h)(6)(i). 

e. By removing paragraph (h)(7)(vii). 

§ 86.096–8—[Amended]

60. Section 86.096–8 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing paragraph (a)(1)(iii). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(2). 

c. By removing paragraph (a)(3). 

d. By removing the text of paragraph 

(b) introductory text. 

e. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4). 

§ 86.096–21—[Amended]

61. Section 86.096–21 is amended by 

removing the introductory text and 

removing and reserving paragraphs (a) 

through (j). 

§ 86.096–24—[Amended]

62. Section 86.096–24 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(5) through (7), (b)(1)(i) 

through (ii), and (b)(1)(vii). 

b. By removing the text of paragraph 

(b)(1)(viii) introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1)(viii)(A) and (f). 

d. By removing paragraph (g)(3). 

§ 86.096–26—[Amended]

63. Section 86.096–26 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a) and (b). 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3). 

d. By removing paragraph (d). 

§ 86.096–30—[Amended]

64. Section 86.096–30 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (14). 

c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) 

through (24). 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b). 

e. By removing paragraphs (c) through 

(f). 

§ 86.097–9—[Amended]

65. Section 86.097–9 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing paragraph (a)(1)(iv). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a)(2). 

c. By removing paragraph (a)(3). 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b) and (d) through (f). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

§ 86.098–10 [Amended] 

66. Section 86.098–10 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

§ 86.098–23 [Amended] 

67. Section 86.098–23 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(2), (c), and (d)(2). 

c. By removing paragraph (d)(3). 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (f) through (g) and (l). 

§ 86.098–24 [Amended] 

68. Section 86.098–24 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing paragraph (a) 

introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4). 

d. By removing paragraph (a)(8) 

through (15). 

e. By removing paragraphs (b) 

introductory text and (b)(1) introductory 

text. 

f. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) and 

(b)(1)(viii)(B). 

g. By removing paragraphs (b)(1)(ix) 

through (xii). 

h. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(2). 

i. By removing paragraphs (b)(3) and 

(c) through (h). 

§ 86.098–25 [Amended] 

69. Section 86.098–25 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (a). 

c. By removing paragraph (b) 

introductory text. 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (2). 

e. By removing paragraph (b)(3) 

introductory text. 

f. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v). 

g. By removing paragraph (b)(3)(vi) 

introductory text. 

h. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(3)(vi)(A) through (D). 

i. By removing paragraphs (b)(3)(vii), 

(b)(4) through (7), and (c) through (h). 

§ 86.098–26 [Amended] 

70. Section 86.098–26 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (2). 

c. By removing the text of paragraphs 

(a)(3) introductory text and (a)(3)(i) 

introductory text. 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) through (B). 

e. By removing paragraph (a)(3)(i)(D). 

f. By removing paragraph (a)(3)(ii) 

introductory text. 

g. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(A) through (B). 

h. By removing paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(D) and (a)(4) through (11). 

i. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b). 

j. By removing paragraphs (c) through 

(d). 

§ 86.098–28 [Amended] 

71. Section 86.098–28 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). 

c. By removing the text of paragraph 

(a)(4)(i) introductory text. 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(A) through (B) and 

(a)(4)(ii)(A). 

e. By removing paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) 

through (iv). 

f. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(5) through (6), (a)(7)(i) 

through (ii), and (b). 

g. By removing paragraphs (c) through 

(h). 

§ 86.098–30 [Amended] 

72. Section 86.098–30 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (18), (b)(1), 

and (b)(3). 

c. By removing paragraph (b)(4) 

introductory text. 

d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii)(A). 

e. By removing paragraphs (b)(5) 

through (f). 

§ 86.099–8 [Amended] 

73. Section 86.099–8 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ii), (b)(5), 

and (c). 

d. By removing paragraphs (e) through 

(k). 

§ 86.099–9 [Amended] 

74. Section 86.099–9 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By removing the introductory text. 

b. By removing paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text. 

c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii). 

d. By removing paragraph (c) through 

(k). 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

75. Section 86.138–96 is amended by 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 86.138–96 Hot soak test. 

* * * * * 

(k) For the supplemental two-diurnal 

test sequence (see § 86.130–96), perform 

a hot soak test as described in this 

section, except that the test shall be 

conducted within seven minutes after 

completion of the hot start exhaust test 

and temperatures throughout the hot 

soak measurement period must be 

between 68° and 86 °F. This hot soak 

test is followed by two consecutive 

diurnal heat builds, described in 

§ 86.133–96(p). 

* * * * * 

76. Section 86.144–94 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(7)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.144–94 Calculations; exhaust 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) For methanol-fueled vehicles, 

where fuel composition is CxHyOz as 

measured, or calculated, for the fuel 

used: 

DF

X

x y x y z

CO HC CO C e e e CH OHe

=

⋅

+ + ⋅+ − ( )

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎟

+ ++ +

100

2 3 76 4 2

2 3

.

CHCHOe ( )⋅ − 10 4


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.008</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44531 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

77. Section 86.415–78 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 86.415–78 Production vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any manufacturer obtaining 

certification shall notify the 

Administrator of the number of vehicles 

of each engine family-engine 

displacement-emission control systemfuel system-transmission type-inertial 

mass category combination produced for 

sale in the United States during the 

preceding year. This report must be 

submitted every year within 45 days 

after the end of the model year. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—Selective Enforcement 

Auditing of New Light-Duty Vehicles, 

Light-Duty Trucks, and Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles 

78. The heading for subpart G is 

revised as set forth above. 

79. Section 86.601–84 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.601–84 Applicability. 

The provisions of this subpart apply 

to light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and heavy-duty vehicles. References to 

‘‘light-duty vehicle’’ or ‘‘LDT’’ in this 

subpart G shall be deemed to include 

light-duty trucks and heavy-duty 

vehicles as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

80. Subpart K is revised to read as 

follows: 

Subpart K—Selective Enforcement 

Auditing of New Heavy-Duty Engines 

§ 86.1001 Applicability. 

The selective enforcement auditing 

program described in 40 CFR part 1068, 

subpart E, applies for all heavy-duty 

engines. In addition, the provisions of 

40 CFR 1068.10 and 1068.20 apply for 

any selective enforcement audits of 

these engines. 

Subpart N—[Amended] 

81. Section 86.1305–2010 is amended 

by revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1305–2010 Introduction; structure of 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) Follow the provisions of 40 CFR 

1065.342 to verify the performance of 

any sample dryers in your system. 

Correct your measurements according to 

40 CFR 1065.659, except use the value 

of Kw in § 86.1342–90(i) as the value of 

(1—xH2Oexh) in Equation 1065.659–1. 

* * * * * 

Subpart T—[Amended] 

82. Section 86.1910 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1910 How must I prepare and test my 

in-use engines? 

* * * * * 

(d) You must test the selected engines 

while they remain installed in the 

vehicle. Use portable emission sampling 

equipment and field-testing procedures 

referenced in § 86.1375. Measure 

emissions of THC, NMHC (by any 

method specified in 40 CFR part 1065, 

subpart J), CO, NOx, PM (as 

appropriate), and CO2. Measure or 

determine O2 emissions using good 

engineering judgment. 

* * * * * 

PART 1027— FEES FOR ENGINE, 

VEHICLE, AND EQUIPMENT 

COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS 

83. The authority citation for part 

1027 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

84. Section 1027.101 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (d) 

and adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1027.101 To whom do these 

requirements apply? 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Marine compression-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

94, or 1042, or 1043. 

* * * * * 

(4) Portable fuel containers we certify 

under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F. 

* * * * * 

(d) Paragraph (a) of this section 

identifies the parts of the CFR that 

define emission standards and other 

requirements for particular types of 

engines, vehicles, and fuel-system 

components. This part 1027 refers to 

each of these other parts generically as 

the ‘‘standard-setting part.’’ For 

example, 40 CFR part 1051 is always the 

standard-setting part for recreational 

vehicles. For some nonroad engines, we 

allow for certification related to 

evaporative emissions separate from 

exhaust emissions. In this case, 40 CFR 

part 1060 is the standard-setting part for 

the equipment or fuel system 

components you produce. 

* * * * * 

85. Section 1027.105 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1027.105 How much are the fees? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) The following fees apply for 

nonroad and stationary engines, 

vehicles, equipment, and components: 

Category Certificate type Fee 

(i) Locomotives and locomotive engines ................................................................... All ................................................................ $826 

(ii) Marine compression-ignition engines and stationary compression-ignition engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 10 liters.All, including Annex VI ................................ 826 

(iii) Other nonroad compression-ignition engines and stationary compression-ignition engines with per-cylinder displacement below 10 liters.All ................................................................ 1,822 

(iv) Large SI engines ................................................................................................. All ................................................................ 826 

(v) Stationary spark-ignition engines above 19 kW ................................................... All ................................................................ 826 

(vi) Marine SI engines and small SI engines ............................................................ Exhaust only ................................................ 826 

(vii) Stationary spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW ......................................... Exhaust only ................................................ 826 

(viii) Recreational vehicles ......................................................................................... Exhaust (or combined exhaust and evap) .. 826 

(ix) Equipment and fuel-system components associated with nonroad and stationary spark-ignition engines, including portable fuel containers.Evap (where separate certification is required).241 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44532 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

86. Section 1027.150 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Annex VI’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 1027.150 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Annex VI means MARPOL Annex VI, 

which is an annex to the International 

Convention on the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified 

by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto. 

Note that 40 CFR part 1043 contains 

regulations implementing portions of 

Annex VI, including certain certification 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

PART 1033—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM LOCOMOTIVES 

87. The authority citation for part 

1033 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

88. Section 1033.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.15 Other regulation parts that apply 

for locomotives? 

(a) Part 1065 of this chapter describes 

procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing engines to 

measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F 

of this part 1033 describes how to apply 

the provisions of part 1065 of this 

chapter to test locomotives to determine 

whether they meet the exhaust emission 

standards in this part. 

* * * * * 

89. A new § 1033.30 is added to 

subpart A to read as follows: 

§ 1033.30 Submission of information. 

(a) This part includes various 

requirements to record data or other 

information. Refer to § 1033.925 and 40 

CFR 1068.25 regarding recordkeeping 

requirements. If recordkeeping 

requirements are not specified, store 

these records in any format and on any 

media and keep them readily available 

for one year after you send an associated 

application for certification, or one year 

after you generate the data if they do not 

support an application for certification. 

You must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them. We may review them at any time. 

(b) The regulations in § 1033.255 and 

40 CFR 1068.101 describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. This includes information 

not related to certification. 

(c) Send all reports and requests for 

approval to the Designated Compliance 

Officer (see § 1033.901). 

(d) Any written information we 

require you to send to or receive from 

another company is deemed to be a 

required record under this section. Such 

records are also deemed to be 

submissions to EPA. We may require 

you to send us these records whether or 

not you are a certificate holder. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

90. Section 1033.101 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1033.101 Exhaust emission standards. 

* * * * * 

(d) Averaging, banking, and trading. 

You may generate or use emission 

credits under the averaging, banking, 

and trading (ABT) program as described 

in subpart H of this part to comply with 

the NOX and/or PM standards of this 

part. You may also use ABT to comply 

with the Tier 4 HC standards of this part 

as described in paragraph (j) of this 

section. Generating or using emission 

credits requires that you specify a 

family emission limit (FEL) for each 

pollutant you include in the ABT 

program for each engine family. These 

FELs serve as the emission standards for 

the engine family with respect to all 

required testing instead of the standards 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. FELs may not be higher 

than the following limits: 

(1) FELs for Tier 0 and Tier 1 

locomotives originally manufactured 

before 2002 may have any value. 

(2) FELs for Tier 1 locomotives 

originally manufactured 2002 through 

2004 may not exceed 9.5 g/bhp-hr for 

NOX emissions or 0.60 g/bhp-hr for PM 

emissions measured over the line-haul 

duty cycle. FELs for these locomotives 

may not exceed 14.4 g/bhp-hr for NOX

emissions or 0.72 g/bhp-hr for PM 

emissions measured over the switch 

duty cycle. 

(3) FELs for Tier 2 and Tier 3 

locomotives may not exceed the Tier 1 

standards of this section. 

(4) FELs for Tier 4 locomotives may 

not exceed the Tier 3 standards of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

91. Section 1033.120 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.120 Emission-related warranty 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Components covered. The 

emission-related warranty covers all 

components whose failure would 

increase a locomotive’s emissions of any 

regulated pollutant. This includes 

components listed in 40 CFR part 1068, 

Appendix I, and components from any 

other system you develop to control 

emissions. The emission-related 

warranty covers the components you 

sell even if another company produces 

the component. Your emission-related 

warranty does not cover components 

whose failure would not increase a 

locomotive’s emissions of any regulated 

pollutant. For remanufactured 

locomotives, your emission-related 

warranty is required to cover only those 

parts that you supply or those parts for 

which you specify allowable part 

manufacturers. It does not need to cover 

used parts that are not replaced during 

the remanufacture. 

* * * * * 

92. Section 1033.150 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1033.150 Interim provisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Estimate costs as described in this 

paragraph (a)(4). 

(i) The cost limits described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section are 

specified in terms of 2007 dollars. 

Adjust these values for future years 

according to the following equation: 

Actual Limit = (2007 Limit) × [(0.6000) 

× (Commodity Index) + (0.4000) × 

(Earnings Index) 

Where: 

2007 Limit = The value specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section ($250,000 

or $125,000). 

Commodity Index = The U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics Producer Price Index for 

Industrial Commodities Less Fuel (Series 

WPU03T15M05) for the month prior to 

the date you submit your application 

divided by 173.1. 

Earnings Index = The U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics Estimated Average Hourly 

Earnings of Production Workers for 

Durable Manufacturing (Series 

CES3100000008) for the month prior to 

the date you submit your application 

divided by 18.26. 

(ii) Calculate all costs in current 

dollars (for the month prior to the date 

you submit your application). Calculate 

fuel costs based on a fuel price adjusted 

by the Association of American 

Railroads’ monthly railroad fuel price 

index (P), which is available at https: // 

www.aar.org/~/media/AAR/RailCost

Indexes/Index_MonthlyFuelPrices.ashx. 

(Use the value for the column in which 

P equals 539.8 for November 2007.) 

Calculate a new fuel price using the 

following equation: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44533 

Fuel Price = ($2.76 per gallon) × (P/ 

539.8) 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

93. Section 1033.220 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.220 Amending maintenance 

instructions. 

You may amend your emissionrelated maintenance instructions after 

you submit your application for 

certification, as long as the amended 

instructions remain consistent with the 

provisions of § 1033.125. You must send 

the Designated Compliance Officer a 

request to amend your application for 

certification for an engine family if you 

want to change the emission-related 

maintenance instructions in a way that 

could affect emissions. In your request, 

describe the proposed changes to the 

maintenance instructions. If owners/ 

operators follow the original 

maintenance instructions rather than 

the newly specified maintenance, this 

does not allow you to disqualify those 

locomotives from in-use testing or deny 

a warranty claim. 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any of the specified 

maintenance, you may distribute the 

new maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

* * * * * 

94. Section 1033.225 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1033.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Include engineering evaluations or 

data showing that the amended engine 

family complies with all applicable 

requirements. You may do this by 

showing that the original emission-data 

locomotive is still appropriate for 

showing that the amended family 

complies with all applicable 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) For engine families already 

covered by a certificate of conformity, 

you may start producing the new or 

modified locomotive anytime after you 

send us your amended application, 

before we make a decision under 

paragraph (d) of this section. However, 

if we determine that the affected 

locomotives do not meet applicable 

requirements, we will notify you to 

cease production of the locomotives and 

may require you to recall the 

locomotives at no expense to the owner. 

Choosing to produce locomotives under 

this paragraph (e) is deemed to be 

consent to recall all locomotives that we 

determine do not meet applicable 

emission standards or other 

requirements and to remedy the 

nonconformity at no expense to the 

owner. If you do not provide 

information required under paragraph 

(c) of this section within 30 days after 

we request it, you must stop producing 

the new or modified locomotives. 

(f) You may ask us to approve a 

change to your FEL in certain cases after 

the start of production. The changed 

FEL may not apply to locomotives you 

have already introduced into U.S. 

commerce, except as described in this 

paragraph (f). If we approve a changed 

FEL after the start of production, you 

must include the new FEL on the 

emission control information label for 

all locomotives produced after the 

change. You may ask us to approve a 

change to your FEL in the following 

cases: 

(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for 

your engine family at any time. In your 

request, you must show that you will 

still be able to meet the emission 

standards as specified in subparts B and 

H of this part. If you amend your 

application by submitting new test data 

to include a newly added or modified 

locomotive, as described in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, use the appropriate 

FELs with corresponding production 

volumes to calculate emission credits 

for the model year, as described in 

subpart H of this part. In all other 

circumstances, you must use the higher 

FEL for the entire family to calculate 

emission credits under subpart H of this 

part. 

(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for 

your emission family only if you have 

test data from production locomotives 

showing that emissions are below the 

proposed lower FEL. The lower FEL 

applies only to engines or fuel-system 

components you produce after we 

approve the new FEL. Use the 

appropriate FELs with corresponding 

production volumes to calculate 

emission credits for the model year, as 

described in subpart H of this part. 

95. Section 1033.235 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 1033.235 Emission testing required for 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) We may measure emissions from 

any of your emission-data locomotives 

or other locomotives from the engine 

family. 

(1) We may decide to do the testing 

at your plant or any other facility. If we 

do this, you must deliver the locomotive 

to a test facility we designate. If we do 

the testing at your plant, you must 

schedule it as soon as possible and 

make available the instruments, 

personnel, and equipment we need. 

(2) If we measure emissions from one 

of your locomotives, the results of that 

testing become the official emission 

results for the locomotive. Unless we 

later invalidate these data, we may 

decide not to consider your data in 

determining if your engine family meets 

applicable requirements. 

(3) Before we test one of your 

locomotives, we may set its adjustable 

parameters to any point within the 

adjustable ranges (see § 1033.115(b)). 

(4) Before we test one of your 

locomotives, we may calibrate it within 

normal production tolerances for 

anything we do not consider an 

adjustable parameter. For example, this 

would apply where we determine that 

an engine parameter is not an adjustable 

parameter (as defined in § 1042.901) but 

that it is subject to production 

variability. 

(d) You may ask to use carryover 

emission data from a previous model 

year instead of doing new tests if all the 

following are true: 

* * * * * 

96. Section 1033.240 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1033.240 Demonstrating compliance with 

exhaust emission standards. 

* * * * * 

(b) Your engine family is deemed not 

to comply if any emission-data 

locomotive representing that family has 

test results showing a deteriorated 

emission level for any pollutant that is 

above an applicable emission standard . 

Use the following steps to determine the 

deteriorated emission level for the test 

locomotive: 

* * * * * 

97. Section 1033.255 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.255 EPA decisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

engine family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

98. Section 1033.325 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1033.325 Maintenance of records; 

submittal of information. 

* * * * * 

(d) Nothing in this section limits our 

authority to require you to establish, 

maintain, keep or submit to us 

information not specified by this 

section. We may also ask you to send 

less information. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

99. Section 1033.501 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.501 General provisions. 

* * * * * 

(i) For passenger locomotives that can 

generate hotel power from the main 

propulsion engine, the locomotive must 

comply with the emission standards 

when in non-hotel setting. For hotel 

mode, the locomotive is subject to the 

notch cap provisions of § 1033.101 and 

the defeat device prohibition of 

§ 1033.115. 

* * * * * 

100. Section 1033.530 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1033.530 Duty cycles and calculations. 

* * * * * 

(h) Calculation adjustments for 

energy-saving design features. The 

provisions of this paragraph (h) apply 

for locomotives equipped with new 

energy-saving locomotive design 

features. They do not apply for features 

that only improve the engine’s brakespecific fuel consumption. They also do 

not apply for features that were 

commonly incorporated in locomotives 

before 2008. 

(1) Manufacturers/remanufacturers 

choosing to adjust emissions under this 

paragraph (h) must do all of the 

following for certification: 

(i) Describe the energy-saving features 

in your application for certification. 

(ii) Describe in your installation 

instruction and/or maintenance 

instructions all steps necessary to utilize 

the energy-saving features. 

(2) If your design feature will also 

affect the locomotives’ duty cycle, you 

must comply with the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(3) Calculate the energy savings as 

described in this paragraph (h)(3). 

(i) Estimate the expected mean in-use 

fuel consumption rate (on a BTU per 

ton-mile basis) with and without the 

energy saving design feature, consistent 

with the specifications of paragraph 

(h)(4) of this section. The energy savings 

is the ratio of fuel consumed from a 

locomotive operating with the new 

feature to fuel consumed from a 

locomotive operating without the 

feature under identical conditions. 

Include an estimate of the 80 percent 

confidence interval for your estimate of 

the mean, and other statistical 

parameters we specify. 

(ii) Your estimate must be based on 

in-use operating data, consistent with 

good engineering judgment. Where we 

have previously certified your design 

feature under this paragraph (h), we 

may require you to update your analysis 

based on all new data that are available. 

You must obtain preliminary approval 

before you begin collecting operational 

data for this purpose. 

(iii) We may allow you to consider the 

effects of your design feature separately 

for different route types, regions, or 

railroads. We may require that you 

certify these different locomotives in 

different engine families and may 

restrict their use to the specified 

applications. 

(iv) Design your test plan so that the 

operation of the locomotives with and 

without is as similar as possible in all 

material aspects (other than the design 

feature being evaluated). Correct all data 

for any relevant differences, consistent 

with good engineering judgment. 

(v) Do not include any brake-specific 

energy savings in your calculated 

values. If it is not possible to exclude 

such effects from your data gathering, 

you must correct for these effects, 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. 

(4) Calculate adjustment factors as 

described in this paragraph (h)(4). If the 

energy savings will apply broadly, 

calculate and apply the adjustment on a 

cycle-weighted basis. Otherwise, 

calculate and apply the adjustment 

separately for each notch. To apply the 

adjustment, multiply the emissions 

(either cycle-weighted or notch-specific, 

as applicable) by the adjustment. Use 

the lower bound of the 80 percent 

confidence interval of the estimate of 

the mean as your estimated energy 

savings rate. We may cap your energy 

savings rate for this paragraph (h)(4) at 

80 percent of the estimate of the mean. 

Calculate the emission adjustment 

factors as: 

AF = 1.000 ¥ (energy savings rate) 

(5) We may require you to collect and 

report data from locomotives we allow 

you to certify under this paragraph (h) 

and to recalculate the adjustment factor 

for future model years based on such 

data. 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

101. Section 1033.601 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.601 General compliance provisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Meaning of terms. When used in 

40 CFR part 1068, apply meanings for 

specific terms as follows: 

(1) ‘‘Manufacturer’’ means 

manufacturer and/or remanufacturer. 

(2) ‘‘Date of manufacture’’ means date 

of original manufacture for freshly 

manufactured locomotives and the date 

on which a remanufacture is completed 

for remanufactured engines. 

* * * * * 

102. Section 1033.625 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1033.625 Special certification provisions 

for non-locomotive-specific engines. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Before being installed in the 

locomotive, the engines were covered by 

a certificate of conformity issued under 

40 CFR Part 1039 (or part 89) that is 

effective for the calendar year in which 

the manufacture or remanufacture 

occurs. You may use engines certified 

during the previous years if they were 

subject to the same standards. You may 

not make any modifications to the 

engines unless we approve them. 

* * * * * 

(b) To certify your locomotives by 

design under this section, submit your 

application as specified in § 1033.205, 

with the following exceptions: 

(1) Include the following instead of 

the locomotive test data otherwise 

required by § 1033.205: 

(i) A description of the engines to be 

used, including the name of the engine 

manufacturer and engine family 

identifier for the engines. 

(ii) A brief engineering analysis 

describing how the engine’s emission 

controls will function when installed in 

the locomotive throughout the 

locomotive’s useful life. 

(iii) The emission data submitted 

under 40 CFR part 1039 (or part 89). 

(2) You may separately submit some 

of the information required by 

§ 1033.205, consistent with the 

provisions of § 1033.1(d). For example, 

this may be an appropriate way to 

submit detailed information about 

proprietary engine software. Note that 

this allowance to separately submit 

some of the information required by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44535 

§ 1033.205 is also available for 

applications not submitted under this 

section. 

(c) Locomotives certified under this 

section are subject to all the 

requirements of this part except as 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. The engines used in such 

locomotives are not considered to be 

included in the otherwise applicable 

engines family of 40 CFR part 1039 (or 

part 89). 

* * * * * 

103. A new § 1033.652 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 1033.652 Special provisions for exported 

locomotives. 

(a) Uncertified locomotives. 

Locomotives covered by an export 

exemption under 40 CFR 1068.230 may 

be introduced into U.S. commerce prior 

to being exported, but may not be used 

in any revenue generating service in the 

U.S. Locomotives covered by this 

paragraph (a) may not include any EPA 

emission control information label. 

Such locomotives may include emission 

control information labels for the 

country to which they are being 

exported. 

(b) Locomotives covered by exportonly certificates. Locomotives may be 

certified for export under 40 CFR 

1068.230. Such locomotives may be 

introduced into U.S. commerce prior to 

being exported, but may not be used in 

any revenue generating service in the 

U.S. 

(c) Locomotives included in a 

certified engine family. Except as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section, locomotives included in a 

certified engine family may be exported 

without restriction. Note that § 1033.705 

requires that exported locomotives be 

excluded from emission credit 

calculations in certain circumstances. 

(d) Locomotives certified to FELs 

above the standards. The provisions of 

this paragraph (d) apply for locomotive 

configurations included in engine 

families certified to one or more FELs 

above any otherwise applicable 

standard. Individual locomotives that 

will be exported may be excluded from 

an engine family if they are unlabeled. 

For locomotives that were labeled 

during production, you may remove the 

emission control information labels 

prior to export. All unlabeled 

locomotives that will be exported are 

subject to the provisions of paragraph 

(a) of this section. Locomotives that are 

of a configuration included in an engine 

family certified to one of more FELs 

above any otherwise applicable 

standard that includes an EPA emission 

control information label when exported 

are considered to be part of the engine 

family and must be included in credit 

calculations under § 1033.705. Note that 

this requirement does not apply for 

locomotives that do not have EPA 

emission control information labels, but 

that do have other labels (such as an 

export-only label). 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

104. Section 1033.705 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1033.705 Calculating emission credits. 

* * * * * 

(b) For each participating engine 

family, calculate positive or negative 

emission credits relative to the 

otherwise applicable emission standard. 

For the end of year report, round the 

sum of emission credits to the nearest 

one hundredth of a megagram (0.01 Mg). 

Round your end of year emission credit 

balance to the nearest megagram (Mg). 

Use consistent units throughout the 

calculation. When useful life is 

expressed in terms of megawatt-hrs, 

calculate credits for each engine family 

from the following equation: 

* * * * * 

105. Section 1033.715 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1033.715 Banking emission credits. 

(a) Banking is the retention of 

emission credits by the manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer generating the emission 

credits (or owner/operator, in the case of 

transferred credits) for use in future 

model years for averaging, trading, or 

transferring. You may use banked 

emission credits only as allowed by 

§ 1033.740. 

(b) You may designate any emission 

credits you plan to bank in the reports 

you submit under § 1042.730. During 

the model year and before the due date 

for the final report, you may designate 

your reserved emission credits for 

averaging, trading, or transferring. 

(c) Reserved credits become actual 

emission credits when you submit your 

final report. However, we may revoke 

these emission credits if we are unable 

to verify them after reviewing your 

reports or auditing your records. 

106. Section 1033.725 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1033.725 Requirements for your 

application for certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Detailed calculations of projected 

emission credits (positive or negative) 

based on projected production volumes. 

We may require you to include similar 

calculations from your other engine 

families to demonstrate that you will be 

able to avoid a negative credit balance 

for the model year. If you project 

negative emission credits for a family, 

state the source of positive emission 

credits you expect to use to offset the 

negative emission credits. 

107. Section 1033.730 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1033.730 ABT reports. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you 

change the FEL after the start of 

production, identify the date that you 

started using the new FEL and/or give 

the engine identification number for the 

first engine covered by the new FEL. In 

this case, identify each applicable FEL 

and calculate the positive or negative 

emission credits under each FEL. 

* * * * * 

(5) Rated power for each locomotive 

configuration, and the average 

locomotive power weighted by U.S.- 

directed production volumes for the 

engine family. 

* * * * * 

108. Section 1033.735 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1033.735 Required records. 

* * * * * 

(b) Keep the records required by this 

section for at least eight years after the 

due date for the end-of-year report. You 

may not use emission credits for any 

engines if you do not keep all the 

records required under this section. You 

must therefore keep these records to 

continue to bank valid credits. Store 

these records in any format and on any 

media, as long as you can promptly 

send us organized, written records in 

English if we ask for them. You must 

keep these records readily available. We 

may review them at any time. 

* * * * * 

(d) Keep records of the engine 

identification number for each 

locomotive you produce that generates 

or uses emission credits under the ABT 

program. If you change the FEL after the 

start of production, identify the date you 

started using each FEL and the range of 

engine identification numbers 

associated with each FEL. You must 

also be able to identify the purchaser 

and destination for each engine you 

produce. 

(e) We may require you to keep 

additional records or to send us relevant 

information not required by this section 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

109. Section 1033.901 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Carryover’’, 

‘‘Total hydrocarbon’’, ‘‘Total 

hydrocarbon equivalent’’, and ‘‘Useful 

life’’ and adding a new definition for 

‘‘Alcohol-fueled locomotive’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 1033.901 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Alcohol-fueled locomotive means a 

locomotive with an engine that is 

designed to run using an alcohol fuel. 

For purposes of this definition, alcohol 

fuels do not include fuels with a 

nominal alcohol content below 25 

percent by volume. 

* * * * * 

Carryover means relating to 

certification based on emission data 

generated from an earlier model year as 

described in § 1033.235(d). This 

generally requires that the locomotives 

in the engine family do not differ in any 

aspect related to emissions. 

* * * * * 

Total hydrocarbon has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This 

generally means the combined mass of 

organic compounds measured by the 

specified procedure for measuring total 

hydrocarbon, expressed as a 

hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon 

mass ratio of 1.85:1. 

Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

This generally means the sum of the 

carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and 

aldehydes, or other organic compounds 

that are measured separately as 

contained in a gas sample, expressed as 

exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled locomotives. The hydrogen-tocarbon mass ratio of the equivalent 

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. 

* * * * * 

Useful life means the period during 

which the locomotive engine is 

designed to properly function in terms 

of reliability and fuel consumption, 

without being remanufactured, specified 

as work output or miles. It is the period 

during which a locomotive is required 

to comply with all applicable emission 

standards. See § 1033.101(g). 

* * * * * 

110. A new § 1033.925 is added to 

subpart J to read as follows: 

§ 1033.925 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the Office of 

Management and Budget approves the 

reporting and recordkeeping specified 

in the applicable regulations. The 

following items illustrate the kind of 

reporting and recordkeeping we require 

for engines regulated under this part: 

(a) We specify the following 

requirements related to engine 

certification in this part 1033: 

(1) In § 1033.150 we state the 

requirements for interim provisions. 

(2) In subpart C of this part we 

identify a wide range of information 

required to certify engines. 

(3) In § 1033.325 we specify certain 

records related to production-line 

testing. 

(4) In subpart G of this part we 

identify several reporting and 

recordkeeping items for making 

demonstrations and getting approval 

related to various special compliance 

provisions. 

(5) In §§ 1033.725, 1033.730, and 

1033.735 we specify certain records 

related to averaging, banking, and 

trading. 

(6) In subpart I of this part we specify 

certain records related to meeting 

requirements for remanufactured 

engines. 

(b) We specify the following 

requirements related to testing in 40 

CFR part 1065: 

(1) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an 

overview of principles for reporting 

information. 

(2) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we 

specify information needs for 

establishing various changes to 

published test procedures. 

(3) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish 

basic guidelines for storing test 

information. 

(4) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify 

data that may be appropriate for 

collecting during testing of in-use 

engines using portable analyzers. 

(c) We specify the following 

requirements related to the general 

compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 

1068: 

(1) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a 

process for evaluating good engineering 

judgment related to testing and 

certification. 

(2) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe 

general provisions related to sending 

and keeping information. 

(3) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require 

manufacturers to make engines available 

for our testing or inspection if we make 

such a request. 

(4) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require 

vessel manufacturers to keep certain 

records related to duplicate labels from 

engine manufacturers. 

(5) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify 

recordkeeping related to rebuilding 

engines. 

(6) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we 

identify several reporting and 

recordkeeping items for making 

demonstrations and getting approval 

related to various exemptions. 

(7) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we 

identify several reporting and 

recordkeeping items for making 

demonstrations and getting approval 

related to importing engines. 

(8) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455 

we specify certain records related to 

testing production-line engines in a 

selective enforcement audit. 

(9) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify 

certain records related to investigating 

and reporting emission-related defects. 

(10) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530 

we specify certain records related to 

recalling nonconforming engines. 

PART 1039—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD 

COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES 

111. The authority citation for part 

1039 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

112. Section 1039.5 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1039.5 Which engines are excluded from 

this part’s requirements? 

* * * * * 

(a) Locomotive engines. (1) The 

following locomotive engines are not 

subject to the provisions of this part 

1039: 

(i) Engines in locomotives subject to 

the standards of 40 CFR part 92 or 1033. 

(ii) Engines in locomotives that are 

exempt from the standards of 40 CFR 

part 1033 pursuant to the provisions of 

40 CFR part 1033 or 1068 (except for the 

provisions of 40 CFR 1033.150(e)). 

(iii) Engines in locomotives that are 

exempt from the standards of 40 CFR 

part 92 pursuant to the provisions of 40 

CFR part 92 (except for the provisions 

of 40 CFR 92.907). For example, an 

engine that is exempt under 40 CFR 

92.906 because it is in a manufacturerowned locomotive is not subject to the 

provisions of this part 1039. 

(2) The following locomotive engines 

are subject to the provisions of this part 

1039: 

(i) Engines in locomotives exempt 

from 40 CFR part 92 or 1033 pursuant 

to the provisions of 40 CFR 92.907 or 

1033.150(e). 

(ii) Locomotive engines excluded 

from the definition of locomotive in 40 

CFR 1033.901. 

* * * * * 

113. Section 1039.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44537 

§ 1039.15 Do any other regulation parts 

apply to me? 

(a) Part 1065 of this chapter describes 

procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing engines to 

measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F 

of this part 1039 describes how to apply 

the provisions of part 1065 of this 

chapter to determine whether engines 

meet the exhaust emission standards in 

this part. 

* * * * * 

114. A new § 1039.30 is added to 

subpart A to read as follows: 

§ 1039.30 Submission of information. 

(a) This part includes various 

requirements to record data or other 

information. Refer to § 1039.825 and 40 

CFR 1068.25 regarding recordkeeping 

requirements. If recordkeeping 

requirements are not specified, store 

these records in any format and on any 

media and keep them readily available 

for one year after you send an associated 

application for certification, or one year 

after you generate the data if they do not 

support an application for certification. 

You must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them. We may review them at any time. 

(b) The regulations in § 1039.255 and 

40 CFR 1068.101 describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. This includes information 

not related to certification. 

(c) Send all reports and requests for 

approval to the Designated Compliance 

Officer (see § 1039.801). 

(d) Any written information we 

require you to send to or receive from 

another company is deemed to be a 

required record under this section. Such 

records are also deemed to be 

submissions to EPA. We may require 

you to send us these records whether or 

not you are a certificate holder. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

115. Section 1039.120 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1039.120 What emission-related warranty 

requirements apply to me? 

* * * * * 

(c) Components covered. The 

emission-related warranty covers all 

components whose failure would 

increase an engine’s emissions of any 

regulated pollutant, including 

components listed in 40 CFR part 1068, 

Appendix I, and components from any 

other system you develop to control 

emissions. The emission-related 

warranty covers these components even 

if another company produces the 

component. Your emission-related 

warranty does not cover components 

whose failure would not increase an 

engine’s emissions of any regulated 

pollutant. 

* * * * * 

116. Section 1039.125 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), (c), and 

(d) and adding paragraph (a)(5) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1039.125 What maintenance instructions 

must I give to buyers? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) You provide the maintenance free 

of charge and clearly say so in your 

maintenance instructions. 

* * * * * 

(5) You may ask us to approve a 

maintenance interval shorter than that 

specified in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) 

of this section under § 1039.210, 

including emission-related components 

that were not in widespread use with 

nonroad compression-ignition engines 

before 2011. In your request you must 

describe the proposed maintenance 

step, recommend the maximum feasible 

interval for this maintenance, include 

your rationale with supporting evidence 

to support the need for the maintenance 

at the recommended interval, and 

demonstrate that the maintenance will 

be done at the recommended interval on 

in-use engines. In considering your 

request, we will evaluate the 

information you provide and any other 

available information to establish 

alternate specifications for maintenance 

intervals, if appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Special maintenance. You may 

specify more frequent maintenance to 

address problems related to special 

situations, such as atypical engine 

operation. You must clearly state that 

this additional maintenance is 

associated with the special situation you 

are addressing. We may disapprove your 

maintenance instructions if we 

determine that you have specified 

special maintenance steps to address 

engine operation that is not atypical, or 

that the maintenance is unlikely to 

occur in use. If we determine that 

certain maintenance items do not 

qualify as special maintenance under 

this paragraph (c), you may identify this 

as recommended additional 

maintenance under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(d) Noncritical emission-related 

maintenance. Subject to the provisions 

of this paragraph (d), you may schedule 

any amount of emission-related 

inspection or maintenance that is not 

covered by paragraph (a) of this section 

(that is, maintenance that is neither 

explicitly identified as critical emissionrelated maintenance, nor that we 

approve as critical emission-related 

maintenance). Noncritical emissionrelated maintenance generally includes 

maintenance on the components we 

specify in 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix 

I, that is not covered in paragraph (a) of 

this section. You must state in the 

owners manual that these steps are not 

necessary to keep the emission-related 

warranty valid. If operators fail to do 

this maintenance, this does not allow 

you to disqualify those engines from inuse testing or deny a warranty claim. Do 

not take these inspection or 

maintenance steps during service 

accumulation on your emission-data 

engines. 

* * * * * 

117. Section 1039.135 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(8) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.135 How must I label and identify 

the engines I produce? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) State the date of manufacture 

[DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]; 

however, you may omit this from the 

label if you stamp, engrave, or otherwise 

permanently identify it elsewhere on 

the engine, in which case you must also 

describe in your application for 

certification where you will identify the 

date on the engine. 

* * * * * 

(8) Identify the emission-control 

system. Use terms and abbreviations as 

described in 40 CFR 1068.45. You may 

omit this information from the label if 

there is not enough room for it and you 

put it in the owners manual instead. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

118. Section 1039.201 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1039.201 What are the general 

requirements for obtaining a certificate of 

conformity? 

* * * * * 

(h) For engines that become new after 

being placed into service, such as 

engines converted to nonroad use after 

being used in motor vehicles, we may 

specify alternate certification provisions 

consistent with the intent of this part. 

See the definition of ‘‘new nonroad 

engine’’ in § 1039.801. 

119. Section 1039.220 is revised to 

read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1039.220 How do I amend the 

maintenance instructions in my 

application? 

You may amend your emissionrelated maintenance instructions after 

you submit your application for 

certification as long as the amended 

instructions remain consistent with the 

provisions of § 1039.125. You must send 

the Designated Compliance Officer a 

written request to amend your 

application for certification for an 

engine family if you want to change the 

emission-related maintenance 

instructions in a way that could affect 

emissions. In your request, describe the 

proposed changes to the maintenance 

instructions. If operators follow the 

original maintenance instructions rather 

than the newly specified maintenance, 

this does not allow you to disqualify 

those engines from in-use testing or 

deny a warranty claim. 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

(b) If your requested change would 

not decrease the specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions anytime after 

you send your request. For example, 

this paragraph (b) would cover adding 

instructions to increase the frequency of 

filter changes for engines in severe-duty 

applications. 

(c) You need not request approval if 

you are making only minor corrections 

(such as correcting typographical 

mistakes), clarifying your maintenance 

instructions, or changing instructions 

for maintenance unrelated to emission 

control. We may ask you to send us 

copies of maintenance instructions 

revised under this paragraph (c). 

120. Section 1039.225 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.225 How do I amend my application 

for certification to include new or modified 

engines or to change an FEL? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Include engineering evaluations or 

data showing that the amended engine 

family complies with all applicable 

requirements. You may do this by 

showing that the original emission-data 

engine is still appropriate for showing 

that the amended family complies with 

all applicable requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) For engine families already 

covered by a certificate of conformity, 

you may start producing the new or 

modified engine configuration anytime 

after you send us your amended 

application and before we make a 

decision under paragraph (d) of this 

section. However, if we determine that 

the affected engines do not meet 

applicable requirements, we will notify 

you to cease production of the engines 

and may require you to recall the 

engines at no expense to the owner. 

Choosing to produce engines under this 

paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to 

recall all engines that we determine do 

not meet applicable emission standards 

or other requirements and to remedy the 

nonconformity at no expense to the 

owner. If you do not provide 

information required under paragraph 

(c) of this section within 30 days after 

we request it, you must stop producing 

the new or modified engines. 

(f) You may ask us to approve a 

change to your FEL in certain cases after 

the start of production. The changed 

FEL may not apply to engines you have 

already introduced into U.S. commerce, 

except as described in this paragraph (f). 

If we approve a changed FEL after the 

start of production, you must include 

the new FEL on the emission control 

information label for all engines 

produced after the change. You may ask 

us to approve a change to your FEL in 

the following cases: 

(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for 

your engine family at any time. In your 

request, you must show that you will 

still be able to meet the emission 

standards as specified in subparts B and 

H of this part. If you amend your 

application by submitting new test data 

to include a newly added or modified 

engine, as described in paragraph (b)(3) 

of this section, use the appropriate FELs 

with corresponding production volumes 

to calculate emission credits for the 

model year, as described in subpart H of 

this part. In all other circumstances, you 

must use the higher FEL for the entire 

engine family to calculate emission 

credits under subpart H of this part. 

(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for 

your engine family only if you have test 

data from production engines showing 

that emissions are below the proposed 

lower FEL. The lower FEL applies only 

to engines you produce after we approve 

the new FEL. Use the appropriate FELs 

with corresponding production volumes 

to calculate emission credits for the 

model year, as described in subpart H of 

this part. 

121. Section 1039.230 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1039.230 How do I select engine 

families? 

* * * * * 

(b) Group engines in the same engine 

family if they are the same in all the 

following aspects: 

(1) The combustion cycle and fuel. 

(2) The cooling system (water-cooled 

vs. air-cooled). 

(3) Method of air aspiration. 

(4) Method of exhaust aftertreatment 

(for example, catalytic converter or 

particulate trap). 

(5) Combustion chamber design. 

(6) Bore and stroke. 

(7) Cylinder arrangement (for engines 

with aftertreatment devices only). 

(8) Method of control for engine 

operation other than governing (i.e., 

mechanical or electronic). 

(9) Power category. 

(10) Numerical level of the emission 

standards that apply to the engine. 

* * * * * 

(d) In unusual circumstances, you 

may group engines that are not identical 

with respect to the things listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section in the same 

engine family if you show that their 

emission characteristics during the 

useful life will be similar. 

* * * * * 

122. Section 1039.235 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 1039.235 What emission testing must I 

perform for my application for a certificate 

of conformity? 

* * * * * 

(c) We may measure emissions from 

any of your emission-data engines or 

other engines from the engine family, as 

follows: 

(1) We may decide to do the testing 

at your plant or any other facility. If we 

do this, you must deliver the engine to 

a test facility we designate. The engine 

you provide must include appropriate 

manifolds, aftertreatment devices, 

electronic control units, and other 

emission-related components not 

normally attached directly to the engine 

block. If we do the testing at your plant, 

you must schedule it as soon as possible 

and make available the instruments, 

personnel, and equipment we need. 

(2) If we measure emissions on one of 

your engines, the results of that testing 

become the official emission results for 

the engine. Unless we later invalidate 

these data, we may decide not to 

consider your data in determining if 

your engine family meets applicable 

requirements. 

(3) Before we test one of your engines, 

we may set its adjustable parameters to 

any point within the physically 

adjustable ranges (see § 1039.115(e)). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44539 

(4) Before we test one of your engines, 

we may calibrate it within normal 

production tolerances for anything we 

do not consider an adjustable parameter. 

For example, this would apply where 

we determine that an engine parameter 

is not an adjustable parameter (as 

defined in § 1039.801) but that it is 

subject to production variability. 

(d) You may ask to use carryover 

emission data from a previous model 

year instead of doing new tests, but only 

if all the following are true: 

* * * * * 

123. Section 1039.240 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.240 How do I demonstrate that my 

engine family complies with exhaust 

emission standards? 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

engine family is considered in 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 1039.101(a) and (b), § 1039.102(a) 

and (b), § 1039.104, and § 1039.105 if all 

emission-data engines representing that 

family have test results showing 

deteriorated emission levels at or below 

these standards. This includes all test 

points over the course of the durability 

demonstration. Note that your FELs are 

considered to be the applicable 

emission standards with which you 

must comply if you participate in the 

ABT program in subpart H of this part. 

(b) Your engine family is deemed not 

to comply if any emission-data engine 

representing that family has test results 

showing a deteriorated emission level 

for any pollutant that is above an 

applicable emission standard. Similarly, 

your engine family is deemed not to 

comply if any emission-data engine 

representing that family has test results 

showing any emission level above the 

applicable not-to-exceed emission 

standard for any pollutant. This 

includes all test points over the course 

of the durability demonstration. 

(c) * * * 

(1) Additive deterioration factor for 

exhaust emissions. Except as specified 

in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, use 

an additive deterioration factor for 

exhaust emissions. An additive 

deterioration factor is the difference 

between exhaust emissions at the end of 

the useful life and exhaust emissions at 

the low-hour test point. In these cases, 

adjust the official emission results for 

each tested engine at the selected test 

point by adding the factor to the 

measured emissions. If the factor is less 

than zero, use zero. Additive 

deterioration factors must be specified 

to one more decimal place than the 

applicable standard. 

* * * * * 

124. Section 1039.245 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1039.245 How do I determine 

deterioration factors from exhaust 

durability testing? 

This section describes how to 

determine deterioration factors, either 

with an engineering analysis, with preexisting test data, or with new emission 

measurements. Apply these 

deterioration factors to determine 

whether your engines will meet the 

duty-cycle emission standards 

throughout the useful life as described 

in § 1039.240. 

* * * * * 

125. Section 1039.250 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text 

and (c) and removing paragraph (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.250 What records must I keep and 

what reports must I send to EPA? 

(a) Within 45 days after the end of the 

model year, send the Designated 

Compliance Officer a report describing 

the following information about engines 

you produced during the model year: 

* * * * * 

(c) Keep data from routine emission 

tests (such as test cell temperatures and 

relative humidity readings) for one year 

after we issue the associated certificate 

of conformity. Keep all other 

information specified in this section for 

eight years after we issue your 

certificate. 

* * * * * 

126. Section 1039.255 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1039.255 What decisions may EPA make 

regarding my certificate of conformity? 

* * * * * 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

engine family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

127. Section 1039.605 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 1039.605 What provisions apply to 

engines certified under the motor-vehicle 

program? 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) You must show that fewer than 50 

percent of the engine family’s total sales 

in the United States are used in nonroad 

applications. This includes engines 

used in any application without regard 

to which company manufactures the 

vehicle or equipment. Show this as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

128. Section 1039.610 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 1039.610 What provisions apply to 

vehicles certified under the motor-vehicle 

program? 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) You must show that fewer than 50 

percent of the engine family’s total sales 

in the United States are used in nonroad 

applications. This includes any type of 

vehicle, without regard to which 

company completes the manufacturing 

of the nonroad equipment. Show this as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

129. Section 1039.705 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) before the 

equation to read as follows: 

§ 1039.705 How do I generate and 

calculate emission credits? 

* * * * * 

(b) For each participating family, 

calculate positive or negative emission 

credits relative to the otherwise 

applicable emission standard. Calculate 

positive emission credits for a family 

that has an FEL below the standard. 

Calculate negative emission credits for a 

family that has an FEL above the 

standard. Sum your positive and 

negative credits for the model year 

before rounding. Round the sum of 

emission credits to the nearest kilogram 

(kg), using consistent units throughout 

the following equation: 

* * * * * 

130. Section 1039.715 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.715 How do I bank emission 

credits? 

(a) Banking is the retention of 

emission credits by the manufacturer 

generating the emission credits for use 

in future model years for averaging or 

trading. 

(b) You may designate any emission 

credits you plan to bank in the reports 

you submit under § 1039.730. During 

the model year and before the due date 

for the final report, you may designate 

your reserved emission credits for 

averaging or trading. 

(c) Reserved credits become actual 

emission credits when you submit your 

final report. However, we may revoke 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

these emission credits if we are unable 

to verify them after reviewing your 

reports or auditing your records. 

131. Section 1039.720 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1039.720 How do I trade emission 

credits? 

* * * * * 

(b) You may trade actual emission 

credits as described in this subpart. You 

may also trade reserved emission 

credits, but we may revoke these 

emission credits based on our review of 

your records or reports or those of the 

company with which you traded 

emission credits. You may trade banked 

credits within an averaging set to any 

certifying manufacturer. 

* * * * * 

132. Section 1039.725 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1039.725 What must I include in my 

application for certification? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Detailed calculations of projected 

emission credits (positive or negative) 

based on projected production volumes. 

We may require you to include similar 

calculations from your other engine 

families to demonstrate that you will be 

able to avoid a negative credit balance 

for the model year. If you project 

negative emission credits for a family, 

state the source of positive emission 

credits you expect to use to offset the 

negative emission credits. 

133. Section 1039.730 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(5), and (f) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1039.730 What ABT reports must I send 

to EPA? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you 

change the FEL after the start of 

production, identify the date that you 

started using the new FEL and/or give 

the engine identification number for the 

first engine covered by the new FEL. In 

this case, identify each applicable FEL 

and calculate the positive or negative 

emission credits under each FEL. 

* * * * * 

(5) Maximum engine power for each 

engine configuration, and the average 

engine power weighted by U.S.-directed 

production volumes for the engine 

family. 

* * * * * 

(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year 

report or final report as follows: 

(1) You may correct any errors in your 

end-of-year report when you prepare the 

final report, as long as you send us the 

final report by the time it is due. 

(2) If you or we determine within 270 

days after the end of the model year that 

errors mistakenly decreased your 

balance of emission credits, you may 

correct the errors and recalculate the 

balance of emission credits. You may 

not make these corrections for errors 

that are determined more than 270 days 

after the end of the model year. If you 

report a negative balance of emission 

credits, we may disallow corrections 

under this paragraph (f)(2). 

(3) If you or we determine anytime 

that errors mistakenly increased your 

balance of emission credits, you must 

correct the errors and recalculate the 

balance of emission credits. 

134. Section 1039.735 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.735 What records must I keep? 

* * * * * 

(b) Keep the records required by this 

section for at least eight years after the 

due date for the end-of-year report. You 

may not use emission credits for any 

engines if you do not keep all the 

records required under this section. You 

must therefore keep these records to 

continue to bank valid credits. Store 

these records in any format and on any 

media, as long as you can promptly 

send us organized, written records in 

English if we ask for them. You must 

keep these records readily available. We 

may review them at any time. 

* * * * * 

(d) Keep records of the engine 

identification number for each engine 

you produce that generates or uses 

emission credits under the ABT 

program. You may identify these 

numbers as a range. If you change the 

FEL after the start of production, 

identify the date you started using each 

FEL and the range of engine 

identification numbers associated with 

each FEL. You must also be able to 

identify the purchaser and destination 

for each engine you produce. 

(e) We may require you to keep 

additional records or to send us relevant 

information not required by this section 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

135. Section 1039.801 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Model 

year’’, ‘‘New nonroad engine’’, ‘‘Total 

hydrocarbon’’, ‘‘Total hydrocarbon 

equivalent’’, and ‘‘Useful life and 

adding definitions for ‘‘Alcohol-fueled 

engine’’, ‘‘Carryover’’, and ‘‘Date of 

manufacture’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 1039.801 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

Alcohol-fueled engine means an 

engine that is designed to run using an 

alcohol fuel. For purposes of this 

definition, alcohol fuels do not include 

fuels with a nominal alcohol content 

below 25 percent by volume. 

* * * * * 

Carryover means relating to 

certification based on emission data 

generated from an earlier model year as 

described in § 1042.235(d). This 

generally requires that the engines in 

the engine family do not differ in any 

aspect related to emissions. 

* * * * * 

Date of manufacture has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

* * * * * 

Model year means one of the 

following things: 

(1) For freshly manufactured 

equipment and engines (see definition 

of ‘‘new nonroad engine,’’ paragraph 

(1)), model year means one of the 

following: 

(i) Calendar year. 

(ii) Your annual new model 

production period if it is different than 

the calendar year. This must include 

January 1 of the calendar year for which 

the model year is named. It may not 

begin before January 2 of the previous 

calendar year and it must end by 

December 31 of the named calendar 

year. 

(2) For an engine that is converted to 

a nonroad engine after being placed into 

service as a stationary engine, or being 

certified and placed into service as a 

motor vehicle engine, model year means 

the calendar year in which the engine 

was originally produced. For a motor 

vehicle engine that is converted to be a 

nonroad engine without having been 

certified, model year means the calendar 

year in which the engine becomes a new 

nonroad engine. (See definition of ‘‘new 

nonroad engine,’’ paragraph (2).) 

(3) For a nonroad engine excluded 

under § 1039.5 that is later converted to 

operate in an application that is not 

excluded, model year means the 

calendar year in which the engine was 

originally produced (see definition of 

‘‘new nonroad engine,’’ paragraph (3)). 

(4) For engines that are not freshly 

manufactured but are installed in new 

nonroad equipment, model year means 

the calendar year in which the engine is 

installed in the new nonroad equipment 

(see definition of ‘‘new nonroad 

engine,’’ paragraph (4)). 

(5) For imported engines: 

(i) For imported engines described in 

paragraph (5)(i) of the definition of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44541 

‘‘new nonroad engine,’’ model year has 

the meaning given in paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this definition. 

(ii) For imported engines described in 

paragraph (5)(ii) of the definition of 

‘‘new nonroad engine,’’ model year has 

the meaning given in 40 CFR 89.602 for 

independent commercial importers. 

(iii) For imported engines described 

in paragraph (5)(iii) of the definition of 

‘‘new nonroad engine,’’ model year 

means the calendar year in which the 

engine is assembled in its imported 

configuration, unless specified 

otherwise in this part or in 40 CFR part 

1068. 

* * * * * 

New nonroad engine means any of the 

following things: 

(1) A freshly manufactured nonroad 

engine for which the ultimate purchaser 

has never received the equitable or legal 

title. This kind of engine might 

commonly be thought of as ‘‘brand 

new.’’ In the case of this paragraph (1), 

the engine is new from the time it is 

produced until the ultimate purchaser 

receives the title or the product is 

placed into service, whichever comes 

first. 

(2) An engine originally manufactured 

as a motor vehicle engine or a stationary 

engine that is later used or intended to 

be used in a piece of nonroad 

equipment. In this case, the engine is no 

longer a motor vehicle or stationary 

engine and becomes a ‘‘new nonroad 

engine.’’ The engine is no longer new 

when it is placed into nonroad service. 

This paragraph (2) applies if a motor 

vehicle engine or a stationary engine is 

installed in nonroad equipment, or if a 

motor vehicle or a piece of stationary 

equipment is modified (or moved) to 

become nonroad equipment. 

(3) A nonroad engine that has been 

previously placed into service in an 

application we exclude under § 1039.5, 

when that engine is installed in a piece 

of equipment that is covered by this part 

1039. The engine is no longer new when 

it is placed into nonroad service covered 

by this part 1039. For example, this 

would apply to marine diesel engine 

that is no longer used in a marine vessel 

but is instead installed in a piece of 

nonroad equipment subject to the 

provisions of this part. 

(4) An engine not covered by 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition that is intended to be 

installed in new nonroad equipment. 

This generally includes installation of 

used engines in new equipment. The 

engine is no longer new when the 

ultimate purchaser receives a title for 

the equipment or the product is placed 

into service, whichever comes first. 

(5) An imported nonroad engine, 

subject to the following provisions: 

(i) An imported nonroad engine 

covered by a certificate of conformity 

issued under this part that meets the 

criteria of one or more of paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this definition, where the 

original engine manufacturer holds the 

certificate, is new as defined by those 

applicable paragraphs. 

(ii) An imported engine covered by a 

certificate of conformity issued under 

this part, where someone other than the 

original engine manufacturer holds the 

certificate (such as when the engine is 

modified after its initial assembly), is a 

new nonroad engine when it is 

imported. It is no longer new when the 

ultimate purchaser receives a title for 

the engine or it is placed into service, 

whichever comes first. 

(iii) An imported nonroad engine that 

is not covered by a certificate of 

conformity issued under this part at the 

time of importation is new, but only if 

it was produced on or after the dates 

shown in the following table. This 

addresses uncertified engines and 

equipment initially placed into service 

that someone seeks to import into the 

United States. Importation of this kind 

of engine (or equipment containing such 

an engine) is generally prohibited by 40 

CFR part 1068. However, the 

importation of such an engine is not 

prohibited if the engine has a model 

year before 2004, since it is not subject 

to standards. 

APPLICABILITY OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR NONROAD DIESEL ENGINES

Maximum engine 

power 

Initial date of emission standards 

kW < 19 ..................... January 1, 2000. 

19 ≤ kW < 37 ............ January 1, 1999. 

37 ≤ kW < 75 ............ January 1, 1998. 

75 ≤ kW < 130 .......... January 1, 1997. 

130 ≤ kW ≤ 560 ........ January 1, 1996. 

kW > 560 ................... January 1, 2000. 

* * * * * 

Total hydrocarbon has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This 

generally means the combined mass of 

organic compounds measured by the 

specified procedure for measuring total 

hydrocarbon, expressed as a 

hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon 

mass ratio of 1.85:1. 

Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

This generally means the sum of the 

carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and 

aldehydes, or other organic compounds 

that are measured separately as 

contained in a gas sample, expressed as 

exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled engines. The hydrogen-to-carbon 

mass ratio of the equivalent 

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. 

* * * * * 

Useful life means the period during 

which the engine is designed to 

properly function in terms of reliability 

and fuel consumption, without being 

remanufactured, specified as a number 

of hours of operation or calendar years, 

whichever comes first. It is the period 

during which a nonroad engine is 

required to comply with all applicable 

emission standards. See § 1039.101(g). 

* * * * * 

§ 1039.810—[Removed]

136. Section 1039.810 is removed. 

PART 1042—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN–USE MARINE 

COMPRESSION–IGNITION ENGINES 

AND VESSELS 

137. The authority citation for part 

1042 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

138. Section 1042.1 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1042.1 Applicability. 

Except as provided in § 1042.5, the 

regulations in this part 1042 apply for 

all new compression-ignition marine 

engines (including new engines deemed 

to be compression-ignition engines 

under this section) and vessels 

containing such engines. See § 1042.901 

for the definitions of engines and 

vessels considered to be new. This part 

1042 applies as follows: 

(a) This part 1042 applies for freshly 

manufactured marine engines starting 

with the model years noted in the 

following tables: 

TABLE 1 TO § 1042.1—PART 1042 APPLICABILITY BY MODEL YEAR

Engine category Maximum engine 

power a

Displacement (L/cyl) 

or application Model year 

Category 1 ................................................................................................................. kW <75 disp.< 0.9 b 2009 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 1042.1—PART 1042 APPLICABILITY BY MODEL YEAR—Continued 

Engine category Maximum engine 

power a

Displacement (L/cyl) 

or application Model year 

75 ≤kW ≤3700 disp.< 0.9 2012 

0.9 ≤disp. < 1.2 2013 

1.2 ≤disp. < 2.5 2014 

2.5 ≤disp. < 3.5 2013 

3.5 ≤disp.< 7.0 2012 

kW > 3700 disp.< 7.0 2014 

Category 2 ................................................................................................................. kW ≤3700 7.0 ≤disp. < 15.0 2013 

kW > 3700 7.0 ≤disp. < 15.0 2014 

All 15 ≤disp. < 30 2014 

Category 3 ................................................................................................................. All disp. > 30 2011 

aSee § 1042.140, which describes how to determine maximum engine power. 

bSee Table 1 of § 1042.101 for the first model year in which this part 1042 applies for engines with maximum engine power below 75 kW and 

displacement at or above 0.9 L/cyl. 

(b) The requirements of subpart I of 

this part apply to remanufactured 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines 

beginning July 7, 2008. 

(c) See 40 CFR part 94 for 

requirements that apply to engines with 

maximum engine power at or above 37 

kW not yet subject to the requirements 

of this part 1042. See 40 CFR part 89 for 

requirements that apply to engines with 

maximum engine power below 37 kW 

not yet subject to the requirements of 

this part 1042. 

(d) The provisions of §§ 1042.620 and 

1042.901 apply for new engines used 

solely for competition beginning 

January 1, 2009. 

(e) The marine engines listed in this 

paragraph (e) are subject to all the 

requirements of this part even if they do 

not meet the definition of 

‘‘compression-ignition’’ in § 1042.901. 

The following engines are deemed to be 

compression-ignition engines for the 

purposes of this subchapter: 

(1) Marine engines powered by 

natural gas or other gaseous fuels with 

maximum engine power at or above 250 

kW. Note that gaseous-fueled engines 

with maximum engine power below 250 

kW may or may not meet the definition 

of ‘‘compression-ignition’’ in 

§ 1042.901. 

(2) Marine gas turbine engines. 

(3) Other marine internal combustion 

engines that do not meet the definition 

of ‘‘spark-ignition’’ in § 1042.901. 

(f) Some of the provisions of this part 

may apply for other engines as specified 

in 40 CFR part 1043. 

139. Section 1042.5 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.5 Exclusions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Recreational gas turbine engines. 

The requirements and prohibitions of 

this part do not apply to gas turbine 

engines installed on recreational 

vessels, as defined in § 1042.901. 

140. Section 1042.15 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1042.15 Do any other regulation parts 

apply to me? 

(a) Part 1043 of this chapter describes 

requirements related to international 

pollution prevention that apply for 

some of the engines subject to this part. 

(b) The evaporative emission 

requirements of part 1060 of this 

chapter apply to vessels that include 

installed engines fueled with a volatile 

liquid fuel as specified in § 1042.107. 

(Note: Conventional diesel fuel is not 

considered to be a volatile liquid fuel.) 

(c) Part 1065 of this chapter describes 

procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing engines to 

measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F 

of this part 1042 describes how to apply 

the provisions of part 1065 of this 

chapter to determine whether engines 

meet the exhaust emission standards in 

this part. 

(d) The requirements and prohibitions 

of part 1068 of this chapter apply to 

everyone, including anyone who 

manufactures, imports, installs, owns, 

operates, or rebuilds any of the engines 

subject to this part 1042, or vessels 

containing these engines. Part 1068 of 

this chapter describes general 

provisions, including these seven areas: 

(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for 

engine manufacturers, vessel 

manufacturers, and others. 

(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket 

changes. 

(3) Exclusions and exemptions for 

certain engines. 

(4) Importing engines. 

(5) Selective enforcement audits of 

your production. 

(6) Defect reporting and recall. 

(7) Procedures for hearings. 

(e) Other parts of this chapter apply 

if referenced in this part. 

141. A new § 1042.30 is added to 

subpart A to read as follows: 

§ 1042.30 Submission of information. 

(a) This part includes various 

requirements to record data or other 

information. Refer to § 1042.925 and 40 

CFR 1068.25 regarding recordkeeping 

requirements. If recordkeeping 

requirements are not specified, store 

these records in any format and on any 

media and keep them readily available 

for one year after you send an associated 

application for certification, or one year 

after you generate the data if they do not 

support an application for certification. 

You must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them. We may review them at any time. 

(b) The regulations in § 1042.255 and 

40 CFR 1068.101 describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. This includes information 

not related to certification. 

(c) Send all reports and requests for 

approval to the Designated Compliance 

Officer (see § 1042.901). 

(d) Any written information we 

require you to send to or receive from 

another company is deemed to be a 

required record under this section. Such 

records are also deemed to be 

submissions to EPA. We may require 

you to send us these records whether or 

not you are a certificate holder. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

142. Section 1042.101 is amended by 

revising the section heading, Table 1 in 

paragraph (a)(3), and paragraph 

(d)(1)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.101 Exhaust emission standards 

for Category 1 engines and Category 2 

engines. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44543 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Diesel-fueled and all other 

engines not described in paragraph 

(d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section must 

comply with Tier 3 HC standards based 

on THC emissions and with Tier 4 

standards based on NMHC emissions. 

* * * * * 

143. A new § 1042.104 is added to 

subpart B to read as follows: 

§ 1042.104 Exhaust emission standards 

for Category 3 engines. 

(a) Duty-cycle standards. Exhaust 

emissions from your engines may not 

exceed emission standards, as follows: 

(1) Measure emissions using the test 

procedures described in subpart F of 

this part. Note that while no PM 

standards apply for Category 3 engines, 

PM emissions must be measured and 

reported. 

(2) NOX standards apply based on the 

engine’s model year and maximum inuse engine speed as shown in the 

following table: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.004</GPH>
44544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 1042.104 NOX EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 3 ENGINES (G/KW-HR) 

Emission standards Model year 

Maximum in-use engine speed 

Less than 130 

RPM 130–2000 RPM a Over 2000 

RPM 

Tier 1 ...................................................... 2004–2010 b ........................................................ 17.0 45.0 · n (¥0.20) 9.8 

Tier 2 ...................................................... 2011–2015 .......................................................... 14.4 44.0 · n (¥0.23) 7.7 

Tier 3 ...................................................... 2016 and later ..................................................... 3.4 9.0 · n (¥0.20) 2.0 

aApplicable standards are calculated from n (maximum in-use engine speed, in RPM, as specified in § 1042.140), rounded to one decimal 

place. bTier 1 NOx standards apply as specified in 40 CFR part 94 for engines originally manufactured in model years 2004 through 2010. They are 

shown here only for reference. 

(3) The HC standard for Tier 2 and 

later engines is 2.0 g/kW-hr. This 

standard applies as follows: 

(i) Alcohol-fueled engines must 

comply with HC standards based on 

THCE emissions. 

(ii) Natural gas-fueled engines must 

comply with HC standards based on 

NMHC emissions. 

(iii) Diesel-fueled and all other 

engines not described in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section must 

comply with HC standards based on 

THC emissions. 

(4) The CO standard for Tier 2 and 

later engines is 5.0 g/kW-hr. 

(b) Averaging, banking, and trading. 

Category 3 engines are not eligible for 

participation in the averaging, banking, 

and trading (ABT) program as described 

in subpart H of this part. 

(c) Mode caps. Measured NOX

emissions may not exceed the cap 

specified in this paragraph (c) for any 

applicable duty-cycle test modes with 

power greater than 10 percent maximum 

engine power. Calculate the mode cap 

by multiplying the applicable NOX

standard by 1.5 and rounding to the 

nearest 0.1 g/kW-hr. Note that mode 

caps do not apply for pollutants other 

than NOX and do not apply for any 

modes of operation outside of the 

applicable duty-cycles in § 1042.505. 

Category 3 engines are not subject to 

not-to-exceed standards. 

(d) Useful life. Your engines must 

meet the exhaust emission standards of 

this section over their full useful life, 

expressed as a period in years or hours 

of engine operation, whichever comes 

first. 

(1) The minimum useful life value is 

3 years or 10,000 hours of operation. 

(2) Specify a longer useful life in 

hours for an engine family under either 

of two conditions: 

(i) If you design, advertise, or market 

your engine to operate longer than the 

minimum useful life (your 

recommended hours until rebuild 

indicates a longer design life). 

(ii) If your basic mechanical warranty 

is longer than the minimum useful life. 

(e) Applicability for testing. The dutycycle emission standards in this section 

apply to all testing performed according 

to the procedures in § 1042.505, 

including certification, production-line, 

and in-use testing. See paragraph (g) of 

this section for standards that apply for 

certain other test procedures, such as 

some production-line testing. 

(f) Domestic engines. Engines 

installed on vessels excluded from 40 

CFR part 1043 because they operate 

only domestically may not be certified 

for use with residual fuels. 

(g) Alternate installed-engine 

standards. NOX emissions may not 

exceed the standard specified in this 

paragraph (g) for test of engines 

installed on vessels when you are 

unable to operate the engine at the test 

points for the specified duty cycle, and 

you approximate these points consistent 

with the specifications of section 6 of 

Appendix 8 to the NOX Technical Code. 

Calculate the alternate installed-engine 

standard by multiplying the applicable 

NOX standard by 1.1 and rounding to 

the nearest 0.1 g/kW-hr. 

144. Section 1042.110 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) and adding 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.110 Recording reductant use and 

other diagnostic functions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The onboard computer log must 

record in nonvolatile computer memory 

all incidents of engine operation with 

inadequate reductant injection or 

reductant quality. Use good engineering 

judgment to ensure that the operator can 

readily access the information to submit 

the report required by § 1042.660. For 

example, you may meet this 

requirement by documenting the 

incident in a text file that can be 

downloaded or printed by the operator. 

(3) SCR systems on Category 3 engines 

must also conform to the provisions of 

paragraph (d) of this section if they are 

equipped with on-off controls as 

allowed under § 1042.115(g). 

* * * * * 

(d) For Category 3 engines equipped 

with on-off controls (as allowed by 

§ 1042.115(g)), you must also equip your 

engine to continuously monitor NOX

concentrations in the exhaust. Use good 

engineering judgment to alert operators 

if measured NOX concentrations 

indicate malfunctioning emission 

controls. Record any such operation in 

nonvolatile computer memory. You are 

not required to monitor NOX

concentrations during operation for 

which the emission controls may be 

disabled under § 1042.115(g). 

For the purpose of this paragraph (d), 

‘‘malfunctioning emission controls’’ 

means any condition in which the 

measured NOX concentration exceeds 

the value expected when the engine is 

in compliance with the at-sea standard 

of § 1042.104(g). Determine these 

expected values during production-line 

testing of the engine, using linear 

interpolation between test points. You 

may also use additional intermediate 

test points measured during the 

production-line test. Note that the 

provisions of paragraph (a) of this 

section also apply for SCR systems 

covered by this paragraph (d). For 

engines subject to both the provisions of 

paragraph (a) of this section and this 

paragraph (d), use good engineering 

judgment to integrate diagnostic features 

to comply with both paragraphs. 

145. Section 1042.115 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(2) introductory 

text, (f) introductory text, and adding 

paragraphs (f)(4) and (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.115 Other requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Category 2 and Category 3 engines 

that have adjustable parameters must 

meet all the requirements of this part for 

any adjustment in the specified 

adjustable range. You must specify in 

your application for certification the 

adjustable range of each adjustable 

parameter on a new engine to– 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44545 

(f) Defeat devices. You may not equip 

your engines with a defeat device. A 

defeat device is an auxiliary emission 

control device that reduces the 

effectiveness of emission controls under 

conditions that the engine may 

reasonably be expected to encounter 

during normal operation and use. (Note 

that this means emissions control for 

operation outside of and between the 

official test modes is generally expected 

to be similar to the emissions control 

demonstrated at the test modes for 

engines.) This does not apply to 

auxiliary emission control devices you 

identify in your certification application 

if any of the following is true: 

* * * * * 

(4) The engine is a Category 3 engine 

and the AECD conforms to the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(g) On-off controls for Category 3 

engines. Manufacturers may equip 

Category 3 engines with features that 

disable Tier 3 emission controls subject 

to the following provisions: 

(1) Features that disable Tier 3 

emission controls are considered to be 

AECDs whether or not they meet the 

definition of an AECD. For example, 

manually operated on-off features are 

AECDs under this paragraph (g). The 

features must be identified in your 

application for certification as AECDs. 

(2) If IMO has not established an ECA 

for U.S. waters, you must demonstrate 

that the AECD will not disable emission 

controls while operating in areas where 

emissions could reasonably be expected 

to adversely affect U.S. air quality. If 

ECAs have been established for U.S. 

waters, then you must demonstrate that 

the AECD will not disable emission 

control while operating in waters within 

the outer boundaries of the ECAs. (Note: 

See the regulations in 40 CFR part 1043 

for requirements related to operation in 

other ECAs.) Compliance with this 

paragraph will generally require that the 

AECD operation be based on Global 

Positioning System (GPS) inputs. We 

may consider any relevant information 

to determine whether your AECD 

conforms to this paragraph (g). 

(3) The onboard computer log must 

record in nonvolatile computer memory 

all incidents of engine operation with 

the Tier 3 emission controls disabled. 

(4) The engine must comply fully 

with the Tier 2 standards when the Tier 

3 emission controls are disabled. 

146. Section 1042.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(2) and revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.120 Emission-related warranty 

requirements. 

(b) * * * 

(2) For Category 3 engines, your 

emission-related warranty must be valid 

throughout the engine’s full useful life 

as specified in § 1042.104(d). 

* * * * * 

(c) Components covered. The 

emission-related warranty covers all 

components whose failure would 

increase an engine’s emissions of any 

regulated pollutant, including 

components listed in 40 CFR part 1068, 

Appendix I, and components from any 

other system you develop to control 

emissions. The emission-related 

warranty for freshly manufactured 

marine engines covers these 

components even if another company 

produces the component. Your 

emission-related warranty does not 

cover components whose failure would 

not increase an engine’s emissions of 

any regulated pollutant. For 

remanufactured engines, your emissionrelated warranty is required to cover 

only those parts that you supply or 

those parts for which you specify 

allowable part manufacturers. It does 

not need to cover used parts that are not 

replaced during the remanufacture. 

* * * * * 

147. Section 1042.125 is amended by 

revising the heading, introductory text, 

and paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1042.125 Maintenance instructions. 

Give the ultimate purchaser of each 

new engine written instructions for 

properly maintaining and using the 

engine, including the emission control 

system, as described in this section. The 

maintenance instructions also apply to 

service accumulation on your emissiondata engines as described in § 1042.245 

and in 40 CFR part 1065. The 

restrictions specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this section related to 

allowable maintenance apply only to 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines. 

Manufacturers may specify any 

maintenance for Category 3 engines. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) You provide the maintenance free 

of charge and clearly say so in your 

maintenance instructions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Noncritical emission-related 

maintenance. Subject to the provisions 

of this paragraph (d), you may schedule 

any amount of emission-related 

inspection or maintenance that is not 

covered by paragraph (a) of this section 

(that is, maintenance that is neither 

explicitly identified as critical emissionrelated maintenance, nor that we 

approve as critical emission-related 

maintenance). Noncritical emissionrelated maintenance generally includes 

maintenance on the components we 

specify in 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix 

I that is not covered in paragraph (a) of 

this section. You must state in the 

owners manual that these steps are not 

necessary to keep the emission-related 

warranty valid. If operators fail to do 

this maintenance, this does not allow 

you to disqualify those engines from inuse testing or deny a warranty claim. Do 

not take these inspection or 

maintenance steps during service 

accumulation on your emission-data 

engines. 

* * * * * 

148. Section 1042.135 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(8), (c)(9), 

and (c)(11) and adding paragraph (c)(12) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1042.135 Labeling. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) State the date of manufacture 

[DAY (optional), MONTH, and YEAR]; 

however, you may omit this from the 

label if you stamp, engrave, or otherwise 

permanently identify it elsewhere on 

the engine, in which case you must also 

describe in your application for 

certification where you will identify the 

date on the engine. 

* * * * * 

(8) State the useful life for your engine 

family if the applicable useful life is 

based on the provisions of 

§ 1042.101(e)(2) or (3), or 

§ 1042.104(d)(2). 

(9) Identify the emission control 

system. Use terms and abbreviations as 

described in 40 CFR 1068.45. You may 

omit this information from the label if 

there is not enough room for it and you 

put it in the owners manual instead. 

* * * * * 

(11) For a Category 1 or Category 2 

engine that can be modified to operate 

on residual fuel, but has not been 

certified to meet the standards on such 

a fuel, include the statement: ‘‘THIS 

ENGINE IS CERTIFIED FOR 

OPERATION ONLY WITH DIESEL 

FUEL. MODIFYING THE ENGINE TO 

OPERATE ON RESIDUAL OR 

INTERMEDIATE FUEL MAY BE A 

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW 

SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES.’’ 

(12) For an engine equipped with onoff emissions controls as allowed by 

§ 1042.115, include the statement: 

‘‘THIS ENGINE IS CERTIFIED WITH 

ON–OFF EMISSION CONTROLS. 

OPERATION OF THE ENGINE 

CONTRARY TO 40 CFR 1042.115(g) IS 

A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW 

SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES.’’ 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

149. Section 1042.140 is amended by 

revising the heading and introductory 

text and adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.140 Maximum engine power, 

displacement, power density, and maximum 

in-use engine speed. 

This section describes how to 

determine the maximum engine power, 

displacement, and power density of an 

engine for the purposes of this part. 

Note that maximum engine power may 

differ from the definition of ‘‘maximum 

test power’’ in § 1042.901. This section 

also specifies how to determine 

maximum in-use engine speed for 

Category 3 engines. 

* * * * * 

(g) Calculate a maximum test speed 

for the nominal power curve as 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.610. This is 

the maximum in-use engine speed used 

for calculating the NOX standard in 

§ 1042.104 for Category 3 engines. 

Alternatively, you may use a lower 

value if engine speed will be limited in 

actual use to that lower value. 

150. Section 1042.145 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and the heading 

of paragraph (c) introductory text and 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.145 Interim provisions. 

(a) General. The provisions in this 

section apply instead of other 

provisions in this part. This section 

describes when these interim provisions 

expire. Only the provisions of paragraph 

(h) of this section apply for Category 3 

engines. 

* * * * * 

(c) Part 1065 test procedures for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(h) The following interim provisions 

apply for Category 3 engines: 

(1) Applicability of Tier 3 standards to 

Category 3 engines operating in Alaska, 

Hawaii, and U.S. Pacific territories. (i) 

Category 3 engines are not required to 

comply with the Tier 3 NOX standard 

when operating in areas of Guam, 

American Samoa, or the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

Category 3 engines are also not required 

to comply with the Tier 3 NOX

standards when operating in the waters 

of the smallest Hawaiian islands or in 

the waters of Alaska west of Kodiak. For 

the purpose of this paragraph (h)(1), 

‘‘the smallest Hawaiian islands’’ 

includes all Hawaiian islands other than 

Hawaii, Kahoolawe, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, 

Molokai, Niihau, and Oahu. Engines 

must comply fully with the appropriate 

Tier 2 NOX standard and all other 

applicable requirements when operating 

in the areas identified in this paragraph 

(h)(1). 

(ii) The provisions of paragraph 

(h)(1)(i) of this section do not apply for 

areas included in an ECA. The Tier 3 

standards apply in full for any area 

included in an ECA. 

(2) Part 1065 test procedures. You 

must generally use the test procedures 

specified in subpart F of this part for 

Category 3 engines, including the 

applicable test procedures in 40 CFR 

part 1065. You may use a combination 

of the test procedures specified in this 

part and the test procedures specified in 

40 CFR part 94 before January 1, 2016 

without request. After this date, you 

must use test procedures only as 

specified in subpart F of this part. 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

151. Section 1042.201 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.201 General requirements for 

obtaining a certificate of conformity. 

* * * * * 

(h) For engines that become new after 

being placed into service, such as 

engines installed on imported vessels, 

we may specify alternate certification 

provisions consistent with the intent of 

this part. See the definition of ‘‘new 

marine engine’’ in § 1042.901. 

152. Section 1042.205 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(12) and revising 

paragraphs (i), (o), and (s)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.205 Application requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(12) Include any other information 

required by this part with respect to 

AECDs. For example, see § 1042.115 for 

requirements related to on-off 

technologies. 

* * * * * 

(i) Include the maintenance and 

warranty instructions you will give to 

the ultimate purchaser of each new 

engine (see §§ 1042.120 and 1042.125). 

Describe your plan for meeting warranty 

obligations under § 1042.120. 

* * * * * 

(o) Present emission data for HC, 

NOX, PM, and CO on an emission-data 

engine to show your engines meet 

emission standards as specified in 

§§ 1042.101 or 1042.104. Note that you 

must submit PM data for all engines, 

whether or not a PM standard applies. 

Show emission figures before and after 

applying adjustment factors for 

regeneration and deterioration factors 

for each pollutant and for each engine. 

If we specify more than one grade of any 

fuel type (for example, high-sulfur and 

low-sulfur diesel fuel), you need to 

submit test data only for one grade, 

unless the regulations of this part 

specify otherwise for your engine. 

Include emission results for each mode 

for Category 3 engines or for other 

engines if you do discrete-mode testing 

under § 1042.505. Note that §§ 1042.235 

and 1042.245 allows you to submit an 

application in certain cases without new 

emission data. 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

(5) For Category 2 and Category 3 

engines, propose a range of adjustment 

for each adjustable parameter, as 

described in § 1042.115(d). Include 

information showing why the limits, 

stops, or other means of inhibiting 

adjustment are effective in preventing 

adjustment of parameters on in-use 

engines to settings outside your 

proposed adjustable ranges. 

* * * * * 

153. Section 1042.220 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.220 Amending maintenance 

instructions. 

You may amend your emissionrelated maintenance instructions after 

you submit your application for 

certification as long as the amended 

instructions remain consistent with the 

provisions of § 1042.125. You must send 

the Designated Compliance Officer a 

written request to amend your 

application for certification for an 

engine family if you want to change the 

emission-related maintenance 

instructions in a way that could affect 

emissions. In your request, describe the 

proposed changes to the maintenance 

instructions. If operators follow the 

original maintenance instructions rather 

than the newly specified maintenance, 

this does not allow you to disqualify 

those engines from in-use testing or 

deny a warranty claim. 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

(b) If your requested change would 

not decrease the specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions anytime after 

you send your request. For example, 

this paragraph (b) would cover adding 

instructions to increase the frequency of 

filter changes for engines in severe-duty 

applications. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44547 

(c) You need not request approval if 

you are making only minor corrections 

(such as correcting typographical 

mistakes), clarifying your maintenance 

instructions, or changing instructions 

for maintenance unrelated to emission 

control. We may ask you to send us 

copies of maintenance instructions 

revised under this paragraph (c). 

154. Section 1042.225 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Include engineering evaluations or 

data showing that the amended engine 

family complies with all applicable 

requirements. You may do this by 

showing that the original emission-data 

engine is still appropriate for showing 

that the amended family complies with 

all applicable requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) For engine families already 

covered by a certificate of conformity, 

you may start producing the new or 

modified engine configuration anytime 

after you send us your amended 

application and before we make a 

decision under paragraph (d) of this 

section. However, if we determine that 

the affected engines do not meet 

applicable requirements, we will notify 

you to cease production of the engines 

and may require you to recall the 

engines at no expense to the owner. 

Choosing to produce engines under this 

paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to 

recall all engines that we determine do 

not meet applicable emission standards 

or other requirements and to remedy the 

nonconformity at no expense to the 

owner. If you do not provide 

information required under paragraph 

(c) of this section within 30 days after 

we request it, you must stop producing 

the new or modified engines. 

(f) You may ask us to approve a 

change to your FEL in certain cases after 

the start of production. The changed 

FEL may not apply to engines you have 

already introduced into U.S. commerce, 

except as described in this paragraph (f). 

If we approve a changed FEL after the 

start of production, you must include 

the new FEL on the emission control 

information label for all engines 

produced after the change. You may ask 

us to approve a change to your FEL in 

the following cases: 

(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for 

your engine family at any time. In your 

request, you must show that you will 

still be able to meet the emission 

standards as specified in subparts B and 

H of this part. If you amend your 

application by submitting new test data 

to include a newly added or modified 

engine, as described in paragraph (b)(3) 

of this section, use the appropriate FELs 

with corresponding production volumes 

to calculate emission credits for the 

model year, as described in subpart H of 

this part. In all other circumstances, you 

must use the higher FEL for the entire 

family to calculate emission credits 

under subpart H of this part. 

(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for 

your engine family only if you have test 

data from production engines showing 

that emissions are below the proposed 

lower FEL. The lower FEL applies only 

to engines you produce after we approve 

the new FEL. Use the appropriate FELs 

with corresponding production volumes 

to calculate emission credits for the 

model year, as described in subpart H of 

this part. 

155. Section 1042.230 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (f) 

introductory text, and (g) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.230 Engine families. 

(a) For purposes of certification, 

divide your product line into families of 

engines that are expected to have 

similar emission characteristics 

throughout the useful life as described 

in this section. You may not group 

engines in different engine categories in 

the same family. Your engine family is 

limited to a single model year. 

(b) For Category 1 engines, group 

engines in the same engine family if 

they are the same in all the following 

aspects: 

(1) The combustion cycle and the fuel 

with which the engine is intended or 

designed to be operated. 

(2) The cooling system (for example, 

raw-water vs. separate-circuit cooling). 

(3) Method of air aspiration. 

(4) Method of exhaust aftertreatment 

(for example, catalytic converter or 

particulate trap). 

(5) Combustion chamber design. 

(6) Nominal bore and stroke. 

(7) Cylinder arrangement (for engines 

with aftertreatment devices only). 

(8) Method of control for engine 

operation other than governing (i.e., 

mechanical or electronic). 

(9) Application (commercial or 

recreational). 

(10) Numerical level of the emission 

standards that apply to the engine, 

except as allowed under paragraphs (f) 

and (g) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) For Category 3 engines, group 

engines into engine families based on 

the criteria specified in Section 4.3 of 

the Annex VI Technical Code 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1042.910), except as allowed in 

paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(f) You may group engines that are not 

identical with respect to the things 

listed in paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this 

section in the same engine family, as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

(g) If you combine engines that are 

subject to different emission standards 

into a single engine family under 

paragraph (f) of this section, you must 

certify the engine family to the more 

stringent set of standards for that model 

year. For Category 3 engine families that 

include a range of maximum in-use 

engine speeds, use the highest value of 

maximum in-use engine speed to 

establish the applicable NOX emission 

standard. 

156. Section 1042.235 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 1042.235 Emission testing required for a 

certificate of conformity. 

This section describes the emission 

testing you must perform to show 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 1042.101(a) or § 1042.104. See 

§ 1042.205(p) regarding emission testing 

related to the NTE standards. See 

§§ 1042.240 and 1042.245 and 40 CFR 

part 1065, subpart E, regarding service 

accumulation before emission testing. 

See § 1042.655 for special testing 

provisions available for Category 3 

engines subject to Tier 3 standards. 

(a) Select an emission-data engine 

from each engine family for testing. For 

engines at or above 560 kW, you may 

use a development engine that is 

equivalent in design to the engine being 

certified. For Category 3 engines, you 

may use a single-cylinder version of the 

engine. Using good engineering 

judgment, select the engine 

configuration most likely to exceed an 

applicable emission standard over the 

useful life, considering all exhaust 

emission constituents and the range of 

installation options available to vessel 

manufacturers. 

* * * * * 

(c) We may measure emissions from 

any of your emission-data engines or 

other engines from the engine family, as 

follows: 

(1) We may decide to do the testing 

at your plant or any other facility. If we 

do this, you must deliver the engine to 

a test facility we designate. The engine 

you provide must include appropriate 

manifolds, aftertreatment devices, 

electronic control units, and other 

emission-related components not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

normally attached directly to the engine 

block. If we do the testing at your plant, 

you must schedule it as soon as possible 

and make available the instruments, 

personnel, and equipment we need. 

(2) If we measure emissions from one 

of your engines, the results of that 

testing become the official emission 

results for the engine. Unless we later 

invalidate these data, we may decide 

not to consider your data in determining 

if your engine family meets applicable 

requirements. 

(3) Before we test one of your engines, 

we may set its adjustable parameters to 

any point within the specified 

adjustable ranges (see § 1042.115(d)). 

(4) Before we test one of your engines, 

we may calibrate it within normal 

production tolerances for anything we 

do not consider an adjustable parameter. 

For example, this would apply where 

we determine that an engine parameter 

is not an adjustable parameter (as 

defined in § 1042.901) but that it is 

subject to production variability. 

(d) You may ask to use carryover 

emission data from a previous model 

year instead of doing new tests, but only 

if all the following are true: 

* * * * * 

157. Section 1042.240 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 

introductory text and adding paragraphs 

(e) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.240 Demonstrating compliance with 

exhaust emission standards. 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

engine family is considered in 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 1042.101(a) or § 1042.104 if all 

emission-data engines representing that 

family have test results showing 

deteriorated emission levels at or below 

these standards. This includes all test 

points over the course of the durability 

demonstration. See paragraph (f) of this 

section for provisions related to 

demonstrating compliance with nonduty-cycle standards, such as NTE 

standards.. Note that your FELs are 

considered to be the applicable 

emission standards with which you 

must comply if you participate in the 

ABT program in subpart H of this part. 

(b) Your engine family is deemed not 

to comply if any emission-data engine 

representing that family has test results 

showing a deteriorated emission level 

for any pollutant that is above an 

applicable emission standard. Similarly, 

your engine family is deemed not to 

comply if any emission-data engine 

representing that family has test results 

showing any emission level above the 

applicable not-to-exceed emission 

standard for any pollutant. This 

includes all test points over the course 

of the durability demonstration. 

(c) To compare emission levels from 

the emission-data engine with the 

applicable emission standards, apply 

deterioration factors to the measured 

emission levels for each pollutant. 

Section 1042.245 specifies how to test 

your Category 1 or Category 2 engine to 

develop deterioration factors that 

represent the deterioration expected in 

emissions over your engines’ full useful 

life. See paragraph (e) of this section for 

determining deterioration factors for 

Category 3 engines. Your deterioration 

factors must take into account any 

available data from in-use testing with 

similar engines. Small-volume engine 

manufacturers and post-manufacture 

marinizers may use assigned 

deterioration factors that we establish. 

Apply deterioration factors as follows: 

* * * * * 

(e) For Category 3 engines, determine 

a deterioration factor based on an 

engineering analysis. The engineering 

analysis must describe how the 

measured emission levels from the 

emission-data engine show that engines 

comply with applicable emission 

standards throughout the useful life. 

Include this analysis in your application 

for certification and add a statement that 

all data, analyses, evaluations, and other 

information you used are available for 

our review upon request. 

(f) For NTE standards and mode caps, 

use good engineering judgment to 

demonstrate compliance based on 

testing of low-hour engines. You may, 

but are not required to, apply the same 

deterioration factors used to show 

compliance with the applicable dutycycle standards. We will deny your 

application for certification if we 

determine that your low-hour test data 

show that your engines would exceed 

one or more NTE standard or mode cap 

during their useful lives. 

158. Section 1042.245 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.245 Deterioration factors. 

This section describes how to 

determine deterioration factors for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines, 

either with an engineering analysis, 

with pre-existing test data, or with new 

emission measurements. Apply these 

deterioration factors to determine 

whether your engines will meet the 

duty-cycle emission standards 

throughout the useful life as described 

in § 1042.240. This section does not 

apply for Category 3 engines. 

(a) You may ask us to approve 

deterioration factors for an engine 

family with established technology 

based on engineering analysis instead of 

testing. Engines certified to a NOx+HC 

standard or FEL greater than the Tier 3 

NOx+HC standard are considered to rely 

on established technology for control of 

gaseous emissions, except that this does 

not include any engines that use 

exhaust-gas recirculation or 

aftertreatment. In most cases, 

technologies used to meet the Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 emission standards would qualify 

as established technology. We must 

approve your plan to establish a 

deterioration factor under this 

paragraph (a) before you submit your 

application for certification. 

* * * * * 

159. Section 1042.250 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and 

removing paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.250 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(a) Send the Designated Compliance 

Officer information related to your U.S.- 

directed production volumes as 

described in § 1042.345. In addition, 

within 45 days after the end of the 

model year, you must send us a report 

describing information about engines 

you produced during the model year as 

follows: 

(1) State the total production volume 

for each engine family that is not subject 

to reporting under § 1042.345. 

(2) State the total production volume 

for any engine family for which you 

produce engines after completing the 

reports required in § 1042.345. 

* * * * * 

(c) Keep data from routine emission 

tests (such as test cell temperatures and 

relative humidity readings) for one year 

after we issue the associated certificate 

of conformity. Keep all other 

information specified in this section for 

eight years after we issue your 

certificate. 

* * * * * 

160. Section 1042.255 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.255 EPA decisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

engine family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44549 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

161. Section 1042.301 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (e), and (f) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1042.301 General provisions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) We may exempt Category 1 engine 

families with a projected U.S.-directed 

production volume below 100 engines 

from routine testing under this subpart. 

Request this exemption in your 

application for certification and include 

your basis for projecting a production 

volume below 100 units. We will 

approve your request if we agree that 

you have made good-faith estimates of 

your production volumes. Your 

exemption is approved when we grant 

your certificate. You must promptly 

notify us if your actual production 

exceeds 100 units during the model 

year. If you exceed the production limit 

or if there is evidence of a 

nonconformity, we may require you to 

test production-line engines under this 

subpart, or under 40 CFR part 1068, 

subpart E, even if we have approved an 

exemption under this paragraph (a)(2). 

* * * * * 

(c) Other regulatory provisions 

authorize us to suspend, revoke, or void 

your certificate of conformity, or order 

recalls for engine families, without 

regard to whether they have passed 

these production-line testing 

requirements. The requirements of this 

subpart do not affect our ability to do 

selective enforcement audits, as 

described in 40 CFR part 1068. 

Individual engines in families that pass 

these production-line testing 

requirements must also conform to all 

applicable regulations of this part and 

40 CFR part 1068. 

* * * * * 

(e) If you certify a Category 1 or 

Category 2 engine family with carryover 

emission data, as described in 

§ 1042.235(d), and these equivalent 

engine families consistently pass the 

production-line testing requirements 

over the preceding two-year period, you 

may ask for a reduced testing rate for 

further production-line testing for that 

family. The minimum testing rate is one 

engine per engine family. If we reduce 

your testing rate, we may limit our 

approval to any number of model years. 

In determining whether to approve your 

request, we may consider the number of 

engines that have failed the emission 

tests. 

(f) We may ask you to make a 

reasonable number of production-line 

engines available for a reasonable time 

so we can test or inspect them for 

compliance with the requirements of 

this part. For Category 3 engines, you 

are not required to deliver engines to us, 

but we may inspect and test your 

engines at any facility at which they are 

assembled or installed in vessels. 

162. A new § 1042.302 is added to 

subpart D to read as follows: 

§ 1042.302 Applicability of this subpart for 

Category 3 engines. 

If you produce Category 3 engines that 

are subject to the requirements of this 

part, you must test them as described in 

this subpart, except as specified in this 

section. 

(a) You must test each engine at the 

sea trial of the vessel in which it is 

installed or within the first 300 hours of 

operation, whichever occurs first. Since 

you must test each engine, the 

provisions of §§ 1042.310 and 

1042.315(b) do not apply for Category 3 

engines. If we determine that an engine 

failure under this subpart is caused by 

defective components or design 

deficiencies, we may revoke or suspend 

your certificate for the engine family as 

described in § 1042.340. If we determine 

that an engine failure under this subpart 

is caused only by incorrect assembly, 

we may suspend your certificate for the 

engine family as described in 

§ 1042.325. 

(b) You are only required to measure 

NOX emissions. You do not need to 

measure HC, CO or PM emissions under 

this subpart. 

(c) If you are unable to operate the 

engine at the test points for the specified 

duty cycle, you may approximate these 

points consistent with the specifications 

of section 6 of Appendix 8 to the NOX

Technical Code and show compliance 

with the alternate installed-engine 

standard of § 1042.104(g). You must 

obtain EPA approval of your test 

procedure prior to testing the engine. 

Include in your request a description of 

your basis for concluding that the 

engine cannot be tested at the actual test 

points of the specified duty-cycle. 

(d) You may measure NOX emissions 

at additional test points for the purposes 

of the continuous NOX monitoring 

requirements of § 1042.110(d). If you do, 

you must report these values along with 

your other test results. Describe in your 

application for certification how you 

plan to use these values for continuous 

NOX monitoring. 

(e) You may ask to measure emissions 

according to the Direct Measurement 

and Monitoring method specified in 

section 6.4 of the NOX Technical Code. 

163. Section 1042.305 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (d) introductory 

text, (d)(2), (e)(2), and (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.305 Preparing and testing 

production-line engines. 

* * * * * 

(a) Test procedures. Test your 

production-line engines using the 

applicable testing procedures in subpart 

F of this part to show you meet the dutycycle emission standards in subpart B of 

this part. For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines, the not-to-exceed standards 

apply for this testing of Category 1 and 

Category 2 engines, but you need not do 

additional testing to show that 

production-line engines meet the not-toexceed standards. The mode cap 

standards apply for the testing of 

Category 3 engines. 

* * * * * 

(d) Setting adjustable parameters. 

Before any test, we may require you to 

adjust any adjustable parameter on a 

Category 1 engine to any setting within 

its physically adjustable range. We may 

adjust or require you to adjust any 

adjustable parameter on a Category 2 or 

Category 3 engine to any setting within 

its specified adjustable range. 

* * * * * 

(2) We may specify adjustments 

within the physically adjustable range 

or the specified adjustable range by 

considering their effect on emission 

levels. We may also consider how likely 

it is that someone will make such an 

adjustment with in-use engines. 

(e) * * * 

(2) For Category 2 or Category 3 

engines, you may ask us to approve a 

Green Engine Factor for each regulated 

pollutant for each engine family. Use 

the Green Engine Factor to adjust 

measured emission levels to establish a 

stabilized low-hour emission level. 

* * * * * 

(g) Retesting after invalid tests. You 

may retest an engine if you determine 

an emission test is invalid under 

subpart F of this part. Explain in your 

written report reasons for invalidating 

any test and the emission results from 

all tests. If we determine that you 

improperly invalidated a test, we may 

require you to ask for our approval for 

future testing before substituting results 

of the new tests for invalid ones. 

164. Section 1042.310 is amended by 

revising the section heading to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.310 Engine selection for Category 1 

and Category 2 engines. 

* * * * * 

165. Section 1042.315 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1042.315 Determining compliance. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44550 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Calculate your test results as 

follows: 

(1) Initial and final test results. 

Calculate and round the test results for 

each engine. If you do several tests on 

an engine, calculate the initial results 

for each test, then add all the test results 

together and divide by the number of 

tests. Round this final calculated value 

for the final test results on that engine. 

Include the Green Engine Factor to 

determine low-hour emission results, if 

applicable. 

(2) Final deteriorated test results. 

Apply the deterioration factor for the 

engine family to the final test results 

(see § 1042.240(c)). 

(3) Round deteriorated test results. 

Round the results to the number of 

decimal places in the emission standard 

expressed to one more decimal place. 

(b) For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines, if a production-line engine fails 

to meet emission standards and you test 

two additional engines as described in 

§ 1042.310, calculate the average 

emission level for each pollutant for the 

three engines. If the calculated average 

emission level for any pollutant exceeds 

the applicable emission standard, the 

engine family fails the production-line 

testing requirements of this subpart. Tell 

us within ten working days if this 

happens. You may request to amend the 

application for certification to raise the 

FEL of the engine family as described in 

§ 1042.225(f). 

166. Section 1042.320 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.320 What happens if one of my 

production-line engines fails to meet 

emission standards? 

(a) * * * 

(2) Include the test results and 

describe the remedy for each engine in 

the written report required under 

§ 1042.345. 

* * * * * 

167. Section 1042.325 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.325 What happens if an engine 

family fails the production-line testing 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(e) You may request to amend the 

application for certification to raise the 

FEL of the entire engine family before or 

after we suspend your certificate as 

described in § 1042.225(f). We will 

approve your request if the failure is not 

caused by a defect and it is clear that 

you used good engineering judgment in 

establishing the original FEL. 

168. Section 1042.345 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1042.345 Reporting. 

(a) * * * 

(6) Provide the test number; the date, 

time and duration of testing; test 

procedure; all initial test results; final 

test results; and final deteriorated test 

results for all tests. Provide the emission 

results for all measured pollutants. 

Include information for both valid and 

invalid tests and the reason for any 

invalidation. 

* * * * *. 

(b) We may ask you to add 

information to your written report so we 

can determine whether your new 

engines conform with the requirements 

of this subpart. We may also ask you to 

send less information. 

* * * * * 

169. Section 1042.350 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.350 Recordkeeping. 

* * * * * 

(b) Keep paper or electronic records of 

your production-line testing for eight 

years after you complete all the testing 

required for an engine family in a model 

year. 

* * * * * 

(e) If we ask, you must give us a more 

detailed description of projected or 

actual production figures for an engine 

family. We may ask you to divide your 

production figures by maximum engine 

power, displacement, fuel type, or 

assembly plant (if you produce engines 

at more than one plant). 

(f) Keep records of the engine 

identification number for each engine 

you produce under each certificate of 

conformity. You may identify these 

numbers as a range. Give us these 

records within 30 days if we ask for 

them. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

170. Section 1042.501 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.501 How do I run a valid emission 

test? 

(a) Use the equipment and procedures 

for compression-ignition engines in 40 

CFR part 1065 to determine whether 

engines meet the duty-cycle emission 

standards in § 1042.101 or 1042.104. 

Measure the emissions of all regulated 

pollutants as specified in 40 CFR part 

1065. Use the applicable duty cycles 

specified in § 1042.505. 

* * * * * 

(c) Use the fuels and lubricants 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart 

H, for all the testing we require in this 

part, except as specified in this section 

and § 1042.515. 

(1) For service accumulation, use the 

test fuel or any commercially available 

fuel that is representative of the fuel that 

in-use engines will use. 

(2) For diesel-fueled engines, use the 

appropriate diesel fuel specified in 40 

CFR part 1065, subpart H, for emission 

testing. Unless we specify otherwise, the 

appropriate diesel test fuel for Category 

1 and Category 2 engines is the ultra 

low-sulfur diesel fuel. If we allow you 

to use a test fuel with higher sulfur 

levels, identify the test fuel in your 

application for certification. Unless we 

specify otherwise, the appropriate diesel 

test fuel for Category 3 engines is the 

high-sulfur diesel fuel. For Category 2 

and Category 3 engines, you may ask to 

use commercially available diesel fuel 

similar but not necessarily identical to 

the applicable fuel specified in 40 CFR 

part 1065, subpart H; we will approve 

your request if you show us that it does 

not affect your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

(3) For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines that are expected to use a type 

of fuel (or mixed fuel) other than diesel 

fuel (such as natural gas, methanol, or 

residual fuel), use a commercially 

available fuel of that type for emission 

testing. If a given engine is designed to 

operate on different fuels, we may (at 

our discretion) require testing on each 

fuel. Propose test fuel specifications that 

take into account the engine design and 

the properties of commercially available 

fuels. Describe these test fuel 

specifications in the application for 

certification. 

* * * * * 

(g) For Category 3 engines, you may 

submit test data for NOX, HC, and CO 

emissions that were collected as 

specified in the Annex VI Technical 

Code instead of test data collected as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065. We may 

require you to include a brief 

engineering analysis showing how these 

data demonstrate that your engines 

would meet the applicable emission 

standards if you had used the test 

procedures specified in 40 CFR part 

1065. 

171. Section 1042.505 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1042.505 Testing engines using discretemode or ramped-modal duty cycles. 

* * * * * 

(b) Measure emissions by testing the 

engine on a dynamometer with one of 

the following duty cycles (as specified) 

to determine whether it meets the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44551 

emission standards in § 1042.101 or 

1042.104: 

* * * * * 

172. Section 1042.525 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.525 How do I adjust emission levels 

to account for infrequently regenerating 

aftertreatment devices? 

* * * * * 

(b) Calculating average adjustment 

factors. Calculate the average 

adjustment factor (EFA) based on the 

following equation: EFA = (F)(EFH) + (1 

¥ F)(EFL) 

Where: 

F = the frequency of the regeneration event 

during normal in-use operation, expressed in 

terms of the fraction of equivalent tests 

during which the regeneration occurs. You 

may determine F from in-use operating data 

or running replicate tests. For example, if you 

observe that the regeneration occurs 125 

times during 1000 MW-hrs of operation, and 

your engine typically accumulates 1 MW-hr 

per test, F would be (125) ÷ (1000) ÷ (1) = 

0.125. No further adjustments, including 

weighting factors, may be applied to F. 

EFH = Measured emissions from a test 

segment in which the regeneration occurs. 

EFL = Measured emissions from a test 

segment in which the regeneration does not 

occur. 

* * * * * 

(g) Category 3 engines. We may 

specify an alternate methodology to 

account for regeneration events from 

Category 3 engines. If we do not, the 

provisions of this section apply as 

specified. 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

173. Section 1042.601 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.601 General compliance provisions 

for marine engines and vessels. 

* * * * * 

(b) Subpart I of this part describes 

how the prohibitions of 40 CFR 

1068.101(a)(1) apply for certain 

remanufactured engines. The provisions 

of 40 CFR 1068.105 do not allow the 

installation of a new remanufactured 

engine in a vessel that is defined as a 

new vessel unless the remanufactured 

engine is subject to the same standards 

as the standards applicable to freshly 

manufactured engines of the required 

model year. 

* * * * * 

(g) The selective enforcement audit 

provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 do not 

apply for Category 3 engines. 

(h) The defect reporting requirements 

of 40 CFR 1068.501 apply for Category 

3 engines, except the threshold for filing 

a defect report is two. 

174. Section 1042.605 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.605 Dressing engines already 

certified to other standards for nonroad or 

heavy-duty highway engines for marine 

use. 

(a) General provisions. If you are an 

engine manufacturer (including 

someone who marinizes a land-based 

engine), this section allows you to 

introduce new marine engines into U.S. 

commerce if they are already certified to 

the requirements that apply to 

compression-ignition engines under 40 

CFR parts 85 and 86 or 40 CFR part 89, 

92, 1033, or 1039 for the appropriate 

model year. If you comply with all the 

provisions of this section, we consider 

the certificate issued under 40 CFR part 

86, 89, 92, 1033, or 1039 for each engine 

to also be a valid certificate of 

conformity under this part 1042 for its 

model year, without a separate 

application for certification under the 

requirements of this part 1042. This 

section does not apply for Category 3 

engines. 

* * * * * 

175. Section 1042.610 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.610 Certifying auxiliary marine 

engines to land-based standards. 

This section applies to auxiliary 

marine engines that are identical to 

certified land-based engines. See 

§ 1042.605 for provisions that apply to 

propulsion marine engines or auxiliary 

marine engines that are modified for 

marine applications. This section does 

not apply for Category 3 engines. 

* * * * * 

176. Section 1042.615 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.615 Replacement engine 

exemption. 

For Category 1 and Category 2 

replacement engines, apply the 

provisions of 40 CFR 1068.240 as 

described in this section. New Category 

3 engines are not eligible for the 

replacement-engine exemption. 

* * * * * 

177. Section 1042.620 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.620 Engines used solely for 

competition. 

The provisions of this section apply 

for new engines and vessels built on or 

after January 1, 2009. 

(a) We may grant you an exemption 

from the standards and requirements of 

this part for a new engine on the 

grounds that it is to be used solely for 

competition. The requirements of this 

part, other than those in this section, do 

not apply to engines that we exempt for 

use solely for competition. 

(b) We will exempt engines that we 

determine will be used solely for 

competition. The basis of our 

determination is described in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

Exemptions granted under this section 

are good for only one model year and 

you must request renewal for each 

subsequent model year. We will not 

approve your renewal request if we 

determine the engine will not be used 

solely for competition. 

(c) Engines meeting all the following 

criteria are considered to be used solely 

for competition: 

(1) Neither the engine nor any vessels 

containing the engine may be displayed 

for sale in any public dealership or 

otherwise offered for sale to the general 

public. Note that this does not preclude 

display of these engines as long as they 

are not available for sale to the general 

public. 

(2) Sale of the vessel in which the 

engine is installed must be limited to 

professional racing teams, professional 

racers, or other qualified racers. For 

replacement engines, the sale of the 

engine itself must be limited to 

professional racing teams, professional 

racers, other qualified racers, or to the 

original vessel manufacturer. 

(3) The engine and the vessel in 

which it is installed must have 

performance characteristics that are 

substantially superior to noncompetitive 

models. 

(4) The engines are intended for use 

only as specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(d) You may ask us to approve an 

exemption for engines not meeting the 

criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section as long as you have clear and 

convincing evidence that the engines 

will be used solely for competition. 

(e) Engines are considered to be used 

solely for competition only if their use 

is limited to competition events 

sanctioned by the U.S. Coast Guard or 

another public organization with 

authorizing permits for participating 

competitors. Operation of such engines 

may include only racing events, trials to 

qualify for racing events, and practice 

associated with racing events. 

Authorized attempts to set speed 

records are also considered racing 

events. Engines will not be considered 

to be used solely for competition if they 

are ever used for any recreational or 

other noncompetitive purpose. Use of 

exempt engines in any recreational 

events, such as poker runs and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44552 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

lobsterboat races, is a violation of 40 

CFR 1068.101(b)(4). 

(f) You must permanently label 

engines exempted under this section to 

clearly indicate that they are to be used 

only for competition. Failure to properly 

label an engine will void the exemption 

for that engine. 

(g) If we request it, you must provide 

us any information we need to 

determine whether the engines are used 

solely for competition. This would 

include documentation regarding the 

number of engines and the ultimate 

purchaser of each engine as well as any 

documentation showing a vessel 

manufacturer’s request for an exempted 

engine. Keep these records for five 

years. 

178. Section 1042.625 is amended by 

adding introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.625 Special provisions for engines 

used in emergency applications. 

This section describes an exemption 

that is available for certain Category 1 

and Category 2 engines. This exemption 

is not available for Category 3 engines. 

* * * * * 

179. Section 1042.630 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.630 Personal-use exemption. 

This section applies to individuals 

who manufacture vessels for personal 

use with used engines. If you and your 

vessel meet all the conditions of this 

section, the vessel and its engine are 

considered to be exempt from the 

standards and requirements of this part 

that apply to new engines and new 

vessels. The prohibitions in 

§ 1068.101(a)(1) do not apply to engines 

exempted under this section. For 

example, you may install an engine that 

was not certified as a marine engine. 

* * * * * 

180. Section 1042.635 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.635 National security exemption. 

* * * * * 

(a) An engine is exempt without a 

request if it will be used or owned by 

an agency of the Federal government 

responsible for national defense, where 

the vessel in which it is installed has 

armor, permanently attached weaponry, 

specialized electronic warfare systems, 

unique stealth performance 

requirements, and/or unique combat 

maneuverability requirements. This 

applies to both remanufactured and 

freshly manufactured marine engines. 

Gas turbine engines are also exempt 

without a request if they will be owned 

by an agency of the Federal government 

responsible for national defense. 

* * * * * 

181. Section 1042.650 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.650 Migratory vessels. 

The provisions of this section address 

concerns for vessel owners related to 

extended use of vessels with Tier 4 

engines outside the United States where 

ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel is not 

available. The provisions of this section 

apply for Category 1 and Category 2 

engines, including auxiliary engines 

installed on vessels with Category 3 

propulsion engines. These provisions do 

not apply for any Category 3 engines. 

* * * * * 

182. A new § 1042.655 is added to 

subpart G to read as follows: 

§ 1042.655 Special certification provisions 

for catalyst-equipped Category 3 engines. 

This section describes an optional 

approach for demonstrating for 

certification that catalyst-equipped 

engines comply with applicable 

emission standards. 

(a) Eligibility. You may use the 

provisions of this section without our 

prior approval to demonstrate that 

catalyst-equipped Category 3 engines 

meet the Tier 3 standards. In unusual 

circumstances, we may also allow you 

to use this approach to demonstrate that 

catalyst-equipped Category 2 engines 

meet the Tier 4 standards. We will 

generally approve this for Category 2 

engines only if the engines are too large 

to be practically tested in a laboratory 

with a fully assembled catalyst system. 

If we approve this approach for a 

Category 2 engine, interpret references 

to Tier 3 in this section to mean Tier 4, 

and interpret references to Tier 2 in this 

section to mean Tier 3. 

(b) Required testing. The emissiondata engine must be tested as specified 

in Subpart F to verify that the engineout emissions comply with the Tier 2 

standards. The catalyst material must be 

tested under conditions that accurately 

represent actual engine conditions for 

the test points. This catalyst testing may 

be performed on a benchscale. 

(c) Engineering analysis. Include with 

your application a detailed engineering 

analysis describing how the test data 

collected for the engine and catalyst 

material demonstrate that all engines in 

the family will meet all applicable 

emission standards. We may require 

that you submit this analysis separately 

from your application, or that you 

obtain preliminary approval under 

§ 1042.210. 

(d) Verification. You must verify your 

design by testing a complete production 

engine with installed catalysts in the 

final assembled configuration. Unless 

we specify otherwise, do this by 

complying with production-line testing 

requirements of subpart D of this part. 

(e) Other requirements. All other 

requirements of this part, including the 

non-testing requirements for 

certification, apply for these engines. 

183. Section 1042.660 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.660 Requirements for vessel 

manufacturers, owners, and operators. 

(a) For vessels equipped with 

emission controls requiring the use of 

specific fuels, lubricants, or other fluids, 

owners and operators must comply with 

the manufacturer/remanufacturer’s 

specifications for such fluids when 

operating the vessels. Failure to comply 

with the requirements of this paragraph 

is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). 

For marine vessels containing Category 

3 engines that are excluded from the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 1043 

because they operate only domestically, 

it is also a violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(b)(1) to operate the vessel 

using residual fuel. Note that 40 CFR 

part 80 also includes provisions that 

restrict the use of certain fuels by 

certain marine engines. 

(b) For vessels equipped with SCR 

systems requiring the use of urea or 

other reductants, owners and operators 

must report to us within 30 days any 

operation of such vessels without the 

appropriate reductant. Failure to 

comply with the requirements of this 

paragraph is a violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(a)(2). Note that such operation 

is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). 

(c) The provisions of this paragraph 

(c) apply for marine vessels containing 

Category 3 engines. 

(1) All maintenance, repair, 

adjustment, and alteration of Category 3 

engines subject to the provisions of this 

part performed by any owner, operator 

or other maintenance provider must be 

performed using good engineering 

judgment, in such a manner that the 

engine continues (after the maintenance, 

repair, adjustment or alteration) to meet 

the emission standards it was certified 

as meeting prior to the need for service. 

This includes but is not limited to 

complying with the maintenance 

instructions described in § 1042.125. 

Adjustments are limited to the range 

specified by the engine manufacturer in 

the approved application for 

certification. 

(2) It is a violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(b)(1) to operate the vessel with 

the engine adjusted outside of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44553 

specified adjustable range. Each two 

hour period of such operation 

constitutes a separate offense. A 

violation lasting less than two hours 

constitutes a single offense. 

(3) The owner and operator of the 

engine must maintain on board the 

vessel records of all maintenance, 

repair, and adjustment that could 

reasonably affect the emission 

performance of any engine subject to the 

provision of this part. Owners and 

operators must also maintain, on board 

the vessel, records regarding 

certification, parameter adjustment, and 

fuels used. For engines that are 

automatically adjusted electronically, 

all adjustments must be logged 

automatically. Owners and operators 

must make these records available to 

EPA upon request. These records must 

include the following: 

(i) The Technical File, Record Book of 

Engine Parameters, and bunker delivery 

notes that are required by the Annex VI 

Technical Code (incorporated by 

reference in § 1042.910). This file must 

be transferred to subsequent purchasers 

in the event of a sale of the engine or 

vessel. 

(ii) Specific descriptions of engine 

maintenance, repair, adjustment, and 

alteration (including rebuilding). The 

descriptions must include at least the 

date, time, and nature of the 

maintenance, repair, adjustment, or 

alteration and the position of the vessel 

when the maintenance, repair, 

adjustment, or alteration was made. 

(iii) Emission-related maintenance 

instructions provided by the 

manufacturer. These instructions must 

be transferred to subsequent purchasers 

in the event of a sale of the engine or 

vessel. 

(4) Owners and operators of engines 

equipped with on-off emission controls 

must comply with the requirements of 

this paragraph (c)(4) whenever a 

malfunction of the emission controls is 

indicated as specified in § 1042.110(d). 

You must determine the cause of the 

malfunction and remedy it consistent 

with paragraph (c)(1) of this section. See 

paragraph (b) of this section if the 

malfunction is due to either a lack of 

reductant or inadequate reductant 

quality. If the malfunction occurs during 

the useful life, report the malfunction to 

the certificate holder for investigation 

and compliance with defect reporting 

requirements of 40 CFR 1068.501 

(unless the malfunction is due to 

operation without adequate urea or 

other malmaintenance). 

(d) For each marine vessel containing 

a Category 3 engine, the owner must 

annually review the vessel’s records and 

submit to EPA a signed statement 

certifying compliance during the 

preceding year with the requirements of 

this part that are applicable to owners 

and operators of such vessels. 

Alternately, if review of the vessel’s 

records indicates that there has been 

one or more violations of the 

requirements of this part, the owner 

must submit to EPA a signed statement 

specifying the noncompliance, 

including the nature of the 

noncompliance, the time of the 

noncompliance, and any efforts made to 

remedy the noncompliance. The 

statement of compliance (or 

noncompliance) required by this 

paragraph must be signed by the 

executive with responsibility for marine 

activities of the owner. If the vessel is 

operated by a different business entity 

than the vessel owner, the reporting 

requirements of this paragraph (e) apply 

to both the owner and the operator. 

Compliance with these review and 

certification requirements by either the 

vessel owner or the vessel operator with 

respect to a compliance statement will 

be considered compliance with these 

requirements by both of these parties for 

that compliance statement. The 

executive(s) may authorize a captain or 

other primary operator to conduct this 

review and submit the certification, 

provided that the certification statement 

is accompanied by written authorization 

for that individual to submit such 

statements. The Administrator may 

waive the requirements of this 

paragraph when equivalent assurance of 

compliance is otherwise available. 

(e) Manufacturers, owners and 

operators must allow emission tests and 

inspections required by this part to be 

conducted and must provide reasonable 

assistance to perform such tests or 

inspections. 

184. A new § 1042.670 is added to 

subpart G to read as follows: 

§ 1042.670 Special provisions for gas 

turbine engines. 

The provisions of this section apply 

for gas turbine engines. 

(a) Special test procedures. 

Manufacturers seeking certification of 

gas turbine engines must obtain 

preliminary approval of the test 

procedures to be used, consistent with 

§ 1042.210 and 40 CFR 1065.10. 

(b) Remanufacturing. The 

requirements of subpart I of this part do 

not apply for gas turbine engines. 

(c) Equivalent displacement. Apply 

displacement-based provisions of this 

part by calculating an equivalent 

displacement from the maximum engine 

power. The equivalent per-cylinder 

displacement (in liters) equals the 

maximum engine power in kW 

multiplied by 0.00311, except that all 

gas turbines with maximum engine 

power above 9,300 kW are considered to 

have an equivalent per-cylinder 

displacement of 29.0 liters. 

(d) Emission-related components. All 

components meeting the criteria of 40 

CFR 1068.501(a)(1) are considered to be 

emission-related components with 

respect to maintenance, warranty, and 

defect reporting for gas turbine engines. 

(e) Engines used for national defense. 

See § 1042.635 for provisions related to 

exempting gas turbine engines used for 

national defense. 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

185. Section 1042.701 is amended by 

adding introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.701 General provisions. 

This subpart describes how you may 

use emission credits to demonstrate that 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines 

comply with emission standards under 

this part. The provisions of this subpart 

do not apply for Category 3 engines. 

* * * * * 

186. Section 1042.705 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) before the 

equation to read as follows: 

§ 1042.705 Generating and calculating 

emission credits. 

* * * * * 

(a) For each participating family, 

calculate positive or negative emission 

credits relative to the otherwise 

applicable emission standard. Calculate 

positive emission credits for a family 

that has an FEL below the standard. 

Calculate negative emission credits for a 

family that has an FEL above the 

standard. Sum your positive and 

negative credits for the model year 

before rounding. Round the sum of 

emission credits to the nearest kilogram 

(kg) using consistent units throughout 

the following equation: 

* * * * * 

187. Section 1042.715 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.715 Banking emission credits. 

(a) Banking is the retention of 

emission credits by the manufacturer 

generating the emission credits for use 

in future model years for averaging or 

trading. 

(b) You may designate any emission 

credits you plan to bank in the reports 

you submit under § 1042.730. During 

the model year and before the due date 

for the final report, you may designate 

your reserved emission credits for 

averaging or trading. 

(c) Reserved credits become actual 

emission credits when you submit your 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

final report. However, we may revoke 

these emission credits if we are unable 

to verify them after reviewing your 

reports or auditing your records. 

188. Section 1042.720 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.720 Trading emission credits. 

* * * * * 

(b) You may trade actual emission 

credits as described in this subpart. You 

may also trade reserved emission 

credits, but we may revoke these 

emission credits based on our review of 

your records or reports or those of the 

company with which you traded 

emission credits. You may trade banked 

credits within an averaging set to any 

certifying manufacturer. 

* * * * * 

189. Section 1042.725 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.725 Information required for the 

application for certification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Detailed calculations of projected 

emission credits (positive or negative) 

based on projected production volumes. 

We may require you to include similar 

calculations from your other engine 

families to demonstrate that you will be 

able to avoid a negative credit balance 

for the model year. If you project 

negative emission credits for a family, 

state the source of positive emission 

credits you expect to use to offset the 

negative emission credits. 

190. Section 1042.730 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.730 ABT reports. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you 

change the FEL after the start of 

production, identify the date that you 

started using the new FEL and/or give 

the engine identification number for the 

first engine covered by the new FEL. In 

this case, identify each applicable FEL 

and calculate the positive or negative 

emission credits under each FEL. 

* * * * * 

(5) Maximum engine power for each 

engine configuration, and the average 

engine power weighted by U.S.-directed 

production volumes for the engine 

family. 

* * * * * 

191. Section 1042.735 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.735 Recordkeeping. 

* * * * * 

(b) Keep the records required by this 

section for at least eight years after the 

due date for the end-of-year report. You 

may not use emission credits for any 

engines if you do not keep all the 

records required under this section. You 

must therefore keep these records to 

continue to bank valid credits. Store 

these records in any format and on any 

media as long as you can promptly send 

us organized, written records in English 

if we ask for them. You must keep these 

records readily available. We may 

review them at any time. 

* * * * * 

(d) Keep records of the engine 

identification number for each engine 

you produce that generates or uses 

emission credits under the ABT 

program. You may identify these 

numbers as a range. If you change the 

FEL after the start of production, 

identify the date you started using each 

FEL and the range of engine 

identification numbers associated with 

each FEL. You must also be able to 

identify the purchaser and destination 

for each engine you produce. 

(e) We may require you to keep 

additional records or to send us relevant 

information not required by this section 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act. 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

192. Section 1042.801 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.801 General provisions. 

This subpart describes how the 

provisions of this part 1042 apply for 

certain remanufactured marine engines. 

(a) The requirements of this subpart 

apply for remanufactured Tier 2 and 

earlier commercial Category 1 and 

Category 2 marine engines at or above 

600 kW, excluding those engines 

originally manufactured before 1973. 

Note that the requirements of this 

subpart do not apply for engines below 

600 kW, Category 3 engines, engines 

installed on recreational vessels, or Tier 

3 and later engines. 

* * * * * 

193. Section 1042.836 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, and (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1042.836 Marine certification of 

locomotive remanufacturing systems. 

If you certify a Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 

2 remanufacturing system for 

locomotives under 40 CFR part 1033, 

you may also certify the system under 

this part 1042, according to the 

provisions of this section. Note that in 

certain cases before 2013, locomotives 

may be certified under 40 CFR part 1033 

to the standards of 40 CFR part 92. 

(a) Include the following with your 

application for certification under 40 

CFR part 1033 (or as an amendment to 

your application): 

* * * * * 

(c) Systems certified to the standards 

of 40 CFR part 92 are subject to the 

following restrictions: 

(1) Tier 0 locomotives systems may 

not be used for any Category 1 engines 

or Tier 1 or later Category 2 engines. 

(2) Where systems certified to the 

standards of 40 CFR part 1033 are also 

available for an engine, you may not use 

a system certified to the standards of 40 

CFR part 92. 

194. Section 1042.850 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1042.850 Exemptions and hardship 

relief. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you believe that a 

remanufacturing system that we 

identified as being available cannot be 

installed without significant 

modification of your vessel, you may 

ask us to determine that a 

remanufacturing system is not 

considered available for your vessel 

because the cost would exceed the total 

marginal cost threshold in 

§ 1042.815(a)(2). 

* * * * * 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

195. Section 1042.901 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Annex VI 

Technical Code’’, ‘‘Carryover’’, 

‘‘Category 1’’, ‘‘Category 2’’, ‘‘Category 

3’’, ‘‘Compression-ignition’’, 

‘‘Deterioration factor’’, ‘‘Hydrocarbon 

(HC)’’, ‘‘Model year’’, ‘‘New marine 

engine’’, ‘‘Residual fuel’’, ‘‘Smallvolume boat builder’’, ‘‘Small-volume 

engine manufacturer’’, ‘‘Tier 2’’, ‘‘Tier 

3’’, ‘‘Total hydrocarbon’’, ‘‘Total 

hydrocarbon equivalent’’, and ‘‘Useful 

life’’ and adding new definitions for 

‘‘Alcohol-fueled engine’’, ‘‘Annex VI’’, 

‘‘Date of manufacture’’, ‘‘Emission 

control area (ECA)’’, ‘‘Gas turbine 

engine’’, and ‘‘Maximum in-use engine 

speed’’ in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 1042.901 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Alcohol-fueled engine means an 

engine that is designed to run using an 

alcohol fuel. For purposes of this 

definition, alcohol fuels do not include 

fuels with a nominal alcohol content 

below 25 percent by volume. 

* * * * * 

Annex VI means MARPOL Annex VI, 

which is an annex to the International 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44555 

Convention on the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified 

by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto. 

Annex VI Technical Code or NOX

Technical Code means the ‘‘Technical 

Code on Control of Emission of Nitrogen 

Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines, 

2008’’ adopted by the International 

Maritime Organization (incorporated by 

reference in § 1042.910). 

* * * * * 

Carryover means relating to 

certification based on emission data 

generated from an earlier model year as 

described in § 1042.235(d). This 

generally requires that the engines in 

the engine family do not differ in any 

aspect related to emissions. 

Category 1 means relating to a marine 

engine with specific engine 

displacement below 7.0 liters per 

cylinder. See § 1042.670 to determine 

equivalent per-cylinder displacement 

for nonreciprocating marine engines 

(such as gas turbine engines). 

Category 2 means relating to a marine 

engine with a specific engine 

displacement at or above 7.0 liters per 

cylinder but less than 30.0 liters per 

cylinder. See § 1042.670 to determine 

equivalent per-cylinder displacement 

for nonreciprocating marine engines 

(such as gas turbine engines). 

Category 3 means relating to a 

reciprocating marine engine with a 

specific engine displacement at or above 

30.0 liters per cylinder. 

* * * * * 

Compression-ignition means relating 

to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine. Note that certain other 

marine engines (such as those powered 

by natural gas with maximum engine 

power at or above 250 kW) are deemed 

to be compression-ignition engines in 

§ 1042.1. 

* * * * * 

Date of manufacture has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

* * * * * 

Deterioration factor means the 

relationship between emissions at the 

end of useful life and emissions at the 

low-hour test point (see §§ 1042.240 and 

1042.245), expressed in one of the 

following ways: 

(1) For multiplicative deterioration 

factors, the ratio of emissions at the end 

of useful life to emissions at the lowhour test point. 

(2) For additive deterioration factors, 

the difference between emissions at the 

end of useful life and emissions at the 

low-hour test point. 

* * * * * 

Emission control area (ECA) means an 

area designated by IMO as an Emission 

Control Area. Note that this designation 

is made by amendment to MARPOL 

Annex VI. 

* * * * * 

Gas turbine engine has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1068.30. In general, this 

means anything commercially known as 

a gas turbine engine. It does not include 

external combustion steam engines. 

* * * * * 

Hydrocarbon (HC) means the 

hydrocarbon group on which the 

emission standards are based for each 

fuel type, as described in § 1042.101(d) 

and § 1042.104(a). 

* * * * * 

Maximum in-use engine speed has the 

meaning given in § 1042.140. 

* * * * * 

Model year means one of the 

following things: 

(1) For freshly manufactured marine 

engines (see definition of ‘‘new marine 

engine,’’ paragraph (1)), model year 

means one of the following: 

(i) Calendar year. 

(ii) Your annual new model 

production period if it is different than 

the calendar year. This must include 

January 1 of the calendar year for which 

the model year is named. It may not 

begin before January 2 of the previous 

calendar year and it must end by 

December 31 of the named calendar 

year. For seasonal production periods 

not including January 1, model year 

means the calendar year in which the 

production occurs, unless you choose to 

certify the applicable engine family with 

the following model year. For example, 

if your production period is June 1, 

2010 through November 30, 2010, your 

model year would be 2010 unless you 

choose to certify the engine family for 

model year 2011. 

(2) For an engine that is converted to 

a marine engine after being certified and 

placed into service as a motor vehicle 

engine, a nonroad engine that is not a 

marine engine, or a stationary engine, 

model year means the calendar year in 

which the engine was originally 

produced. For an engine that is 

converted to a marine engine after being 

placed into service as a motor vehicle 

engine, a nonroad engine that is not a 

marine engine, or a stationary engine 

without having been certified, model 

year means the calendar year in which 

the engine becomes a new marine 

engine. (see definition of ‘‘new marine 

engine,’’ paragraph (2)). 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) For engines that are not freshly 

manufactured but are installed in new 

vessels, model year means the calendar 

year in which the engine is installed in 

the new vessel (see definition of ‘‘new 

marine engine,’’ paragraph (4)). 

(5) For imported engines: 

(i) For imported engines described in 

paragraph (5)(i) of the definition of 

‘‘new marine engine,’’ model year has 

the meaning given in paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this definition. 

(ii) For imported engines described in 

paragraph (5)(ii) of the definition of 

‘‘new marine engine,’’ model year 

means the calendar year in which the 

engine is modified. 

(iii) For imported engines described 

in paragraph (5)(iii) of the definition of 

‘‘new marine engine,’’ model year 

means the calendar year in which the 

engine is assembled in its imported 

configuration, unless specified 

otherwise in this part or in 40 CFR part 

1068. (6) For freshly manufactured 

vessels, model year means the calendar 

year in which the keel is laid or the 

vessel is at a similar stage of 

construction. For vessels that become 

new under paragraph (2) of the 

definition of ‘‘new vessel’’ (as a result of 

modifications), model year means the 

calendar year in which the 

modifications physically begin. 

(7) For remanufactured engines, 

model year means the calendar year in 

which the remanufacture takes place. 

* * * * * 

New marine engine means any of the 

following things: 

(1) A freshly manufactured marine 

engine for which the ultimate purchaser 

has never received the equitable or legal 

title. This kind of engine might 

commonly be thought of as ‘‘brand 

new.’’ In the case of this paragraph (1), 

the engine is new from the time it is 

produced until the ultimate purchaser 

receives the title or the product is 

placed into service, whichever comes 

first. 

(2) An engine originally manufactured 

as a motor vehicle engine, a nonroad 

engine that is not a marine engine, or a 

stationary engine that is later used or 

intended to be used as a marine engine. 

In this case, the engine is no longer a 

motor vehicle, nonmarine, or stationary 

engine and becomes a ‘‘new marine 

engine.’’ The engine is no longer new 

when it is placed into marine service as 

a marine engine. This paragraph (2) 

applies for engines we exclude under 

§ 1042.5, where that engine is later 

installed as a marine engine in a vessel 

that is covered by this part 1042. For 

example, this would apply to an engine 

that is no longer used in a foreign 

vessel. 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) An engine not covered by 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44556 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

definition that is intended to be 

installed in a new vessel. This generally 

includes installation of used engines in 

new vessels. The engine is no longer 

new when the ultimate purchaser 

receives a title for the vessel or it is 

placed into service, whichever comes 

first. 

(5) A remanufactured marine engine. 

An engine becomes new when it is 

remanufactured (as defined in this 

section) and ceases to be new when 

placed back into service. 

(6) An imported marine engine, 

subject to the following provisions: 

(i) An imported marine engine 

covered by a certificate of conformity 

issued under this part that meets the 

criteria of one or more of paragraphs (1) 

through (4) of this definition, where the 

original engine manufacturer holds the 

certificate, is new as defined by those 

applicable paragraphs. 

(ii) An imported remanufactured 

engine that would have been required to 

be certified if it had been 

remanufactured in the United States. 

(iii) An imported engine that will be 

covered by a certificate of conformity 

issued under this part, where someone 

other than the original engine 

manufacturer holds the certificate (such 

as when the engine is modified after its 

initial assembly), is a new marine 

engine when it is imported. It is no 

longer new when the ultimate purchaser 

receives a title for the engine or it is 

placed into service, whichever comes 

first. 

(iv) An imported marine engine that 

is not covered by a certificate of 

conformity issued under this part at the 

time of importation is new, but only if 

it was produced on or after the dates 

shown in the following table. This 

addresses uncertified engines and 

vessels initially placed into service that 

someone seeks to import into the United 

States. Importation of this kind of 

engine (or vessel containing such an 

engine) is generally prohibited by 40 

CFR part 1068. 

APPLICABILITY OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR COMPRESSION-IGNITION MARINE ENGINES

Engine category and type Power 

(kW) 

Per-cylinder displacement 

(L/cyl) 

Initial model 

year of 

emission 

standards 

Category 1 ................................................ P < 19 ....................................................... All .............................................................. 2000 

Category 1 ................................................ 19 ≤ P < 37 ............................................... All .............................................................. 1999 

Category 1, Recreational .......................... P ≥ 37 ....................................................... disp. < 0.9 ................................................. 2007 

Category 1, Recreational .......................... All .............................................................. 0.9 ≤ disp. < 2.5 ....................................... 2006 

Category 1, Recreational .......................... All .............................................................. disp. ≥ 2.5 ................................................. 2004 

Category 1, Commercial ........................... P ≥ 37 ....................................................... disp. < 0.9 ................................................. 2005 

Category 1, Commercial ........................... All .............................................................. disp. ≥ 0.9 ................................................. 2004 

Category 2 and Category 3 ...................... All .............................................................. disp. ≥ 5.0 ................................................. 2004 

* * * * * 

Residual fuel means any fuel with a 

T90 greater than 700 °F as measured 

with the distillation test method 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.1010. This 

generally includes all RM grades of 

marine fuel without regard to whether 

they are known commercially as 

residual fuel. For example, fuel 

marketed as intermediate fuel may be 

residual fuel. 

* * * * * 

Small-volume boat builder means a 

boat manufacturer with fewer than 500 

employees and with annual worldwide 

production of fewer than 100 boats. For 

manufacturers owned by a parent 

company, these limits apply to the 

combined production and number of 

employees of the parent company and 

all its subsidiaries. Manufacturers that 

produce vessels with Category 3 engines 

are not small-volume boat builders. 

Small-volume engine manufacturer 

means a manufacturer of Category 1 

and/or Category 2 engines with annual 

worldwide production of fewer than 

1,000 internal combustion engines 

(marine and nonmarine). For 

manufacturers owned by a parent 

company, the limit applies to the 

production of the parent company and 

all its subsidiaries. Manufacturers that 

certify or produce any Category 3 

engines are not small-volume engine 

manufacturers. 

* * * * * 

Tier 2 means relating to the Tier 2 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1042.104 and Appendix I. 

Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1042.101 and § 1042.104. 

* * * * * 

Total hydrocarbon has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This 

generally means the combined mass of 

organic compounds measured by the 

specified procedure for measuring total 

hydrocarbon, expressed as a 

hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon 

mass ratio of 1.85:1. 

Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

This generally means the sum of the 

carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and 

aldehydes, or other organic compounds 

that are measured separately as 

contained in a gas sample, expressed as 

exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled engines. The hydrogen-to-carbon 

mass ratio of the equivalent 

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. 

* * * * * 

Useful life means the period during 

which the engine is designed to 

properly function in terms of reliability 

and fuel consumption, without being 

remanufactured, specified as a number 

of hours of operation or calendar years, 

whichever comes first. It is the period 

during which an engine is required to 

comply with all applicable emission 

standards. See §§ 1042.101(e) and 

1042.104(d). 

196. Section 1042.905 is amended by 

adding the acronym ‘‘IMO’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 1042.905 Symbols, acronyms, and 

abbreviations. 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

IMO ............................ International Maritime 

Organization. 

* * * * * 

197. Section 1042.910 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1042.910 Reference materials. 

Documents listed in this section have 

been incorporated by reference into this 

part. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may 

inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44557 

Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 

Washington, DC 20460 or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(a) IMO material. Table 1 to this 

section lists material from the 

International Maritime Organization 

that we have incorporated by reference. 

The first column lists the number and 

name of the material. The second 

column lists the section of this part 

where we reference it. Anyone may 

purchase copies of these materials from 

the International Maritime Organization, 

4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, 

United Kingdom or http://www.imo.org. 

Table 1 follows: 

TABLE 1 TO § 1042.910—IMO 

MATERIALS

Document number and name Part 1042 

reference 

Resolutions of the 1997 

MARPOL Conference: Resolution 2—Technical Code on 

Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines, 2008. ................ 1042.901 

(b) [Reserved] 

198. Appendix I to part 1042 is 

amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) 

introductory text and (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

Appendix I to Part 1042—Summary of 

Previous Emission Standards 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Tier 2 primary standards. Exhaust 

emissions from Category 1 engines at or 

above 37 kW and all Category 2 engines may 

not exceed the values shown in the following 

table: 

* * * * * 

(3) Tier 2 supplemental standards. The 

not-to-exceed emission standards specified in 

40 CFR 94.8(e) apply for all engines subject 

to the Tier 2 standards described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this appendix. 

199. A new part 1043 is added to 

subchapter U to read as follows: 

PART 1043—CONTROL OF NOX, SOX, 

and PM EMISSIONS FROM MARINE 

ENGINES AND VESSELS SUBJECT TO 

THE MARPOL PROTOCOL 

Sec. 

1043.1 Overview. 

1043.5 Effective dates. 

1043.10 Applicability. 

1043.20 Definitions. 

1043.30 General requirements. 

1043.40 EIAPP certificates. 

1043.41 EIAPP certification process. 

1043.50 Approval of methods to meet Tier 

1 retrofit NOX standards. 

1043.60 Operating requirements for engines 

and vessels subject to this part. 

1043.70 General recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

1043.80 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for fuel suppliers. 

1043.90 Emission Control Areas. [Reserved] 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1901–1915. 

§ 1043.1 Overview. 

The Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships (APPS) requires engine 

manufacturers, owners and operators of 

vessels, and other persons to comply 

with Annex VI of the MARPOL 

Protocol. This part implements portions 

of APPS as it relates to Regulations 13, 

14 and 18 of Annex VI. These 

regulations clarify the application of 

some Annex VI provisions; provide 

procedures and criteria for the issuance 

of EIAPP certificates; and specify 

requirements applicable to ships that 

are not registered by Parties to Annex 

VI. Additional regulations may also 

apply with respect to the MARPOL 

Protocol, such as those issued by the 

U.S. Coast Guard in 33 CFR part 151. 

(a) The general requirements for nonpublic U.S.-flagged and other Party 

vessels are specified in Annex VI, as 

implemented by 33 U.S.C. 1901–1915. 

These requirements apply to engine 

manufacturers, owners and operators of 

vessels, and other persons. 

(b) The provisions of this part specify 

how Regulations 13, 14 and 18 of Annex 

VI, as implemented by 33 U.S.C. 1901– 

1915 will be applied to public vessels 

and U.S.-flagged vessels that operate 

only domestically. This Part also 

describes where the requirements of 

Regulation 13.5.1 of Annex VI and 

Regulation 14.4 of Annex VI will apply. 

(c) The provisions of this part 

implements section 1902(e) of APPS by 

specifying that non-public vessels 

flagged by a country that is not a party 

to Annex VI are subject to the 

substantive requirements of Regulations 

13, 14 and 18 of Annex VI as 

implemented by APPS. 

(d) This part 1043 does not limit the 

requirements specified in Annex VI, as 

implemented by 33 U.S.C. 1901–1915, 

except as specified in § 1043.10(a)(2). 

(e) The provisions of this part specify 

how to obtain EIAPP certificates and 

certificates for Approved Methods. 

§ 1043.5 Effective dates. 

(a) The requirement of APPS for 

marine vessels to comply with Annex VI 

of the MARPOL Protocol is in effect. 

(b) Annex VI was amended on 

October 8, 2008 and enters into force 

July 1, 2010. The requirement of APPS 

for marine vessels to comply with the 

amended Annex VI is effective July 1, 

2010. 

(c) Compliance with the regulations of 

this part is required for all persons on 

or after July 1, 2010. In addition, 

compliance with §§ 1043.40 and 

1043.41 is required before July 1, 2010 

for manufacturers (and other persons) 

seeking EIAPP certificates prior to July 

1, 2010. 

(d) The requirements related to 

operation in ECAs for any portion of 

U.S. navigable waters or the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone are effective 

the date on which an ECA is designated 

by IMO. 

§ 1043.10 Applicability. 

(a) U.S.-flagged vessels. The 

provisions of this part apply for all U.S.- 

flagged vessels (including engines 

installed or intended to be installed on 

such vessels), except as specified in this 

paragraph (a). 

(1) Public vessels are excluded from 

this part. 

(2) Vessels that operate only 

domestically and conform to the 

requirements of this paragraph (a)(2) are 

excluded from Regulation 13 of Annex 

VI. For the purpose of this exclusion, 

the phrase ‘‘operate only domestically’’ 

means the vessels do not enter waters 

subject to the jurisdiction or control of 

any foreign country. (See §§ 1043.60 and 

1043.70 for provision related to fuel use 

by such vessels). To be excluded, the 

vessel must conform to each of the 

following provisions: 

(i) All compression ignition engines 

on the vessel must conform fully to all 

applicable provisions of 40 CFR parts 94 

and 1042. 

(ii) The vessel may not contain any 

engines with a specific engine 

displacement at or above 30.0 liters per 

cylinder. 

(b) Foreign-flagged vessels. The 

provisions of this part apply for all nonpublic foreign-flagged vessels (including 

engines installed or intended to be 

installed on such vessels) as specified in 

this paragraph (b). 

(1) The requirements of this part 

apply for foreign-flagged vessels 

operating in U.S. navigable waters or the 

U.S. EEZ. 

(2) For non-public vessels flagged by 

a country that is not a party to Annex 

VI, the requirements of this part apply 

in the same manner as apply for Party 

vessels, except that engines on nonParty vessels are not required to have 

EIAPP certificates. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Fuel suppliers. The provisions of 

§ 1043.80 apply for all persons 

supplying fuel to any vessel subject to 

this part. 

§ 1043.20 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part: 

Administrator means the 

Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Annex VI means Annex VI of the 

MARPOL Protocol. 

Designated Certification Officer 

means the EPA official to whom the 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

issue EIAPP certificates. 

EIAPP certificate means a certificate 

issued to certify initial compliance with 

Regulation 13 of Annex VI. (Note that 

EIAPP stands for Engine International 

Air Pollution Prevention under Annex 

VI.) 

Emission control area (ECA) means an 

area designated by IMO as an Emission 

Control Area plus all U.S. navigable 

waters shoreward of the ECA. For 

example, where an ECA has been 

designated by IMO to include the Gulf 

of St. Lawrence (or the Atlantic Ocean 

surrounding the Gulf of St. Lawrence), 

the ECA would be deemed to include 

the U.S. portions of the St. Lawrence 

River and Great Lakes for the purposes 

of this part. 

Engine has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1068.30. 

EPA means the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Foreign-flagged vessel means a vessel 

of foreign registry or a vessel operated 

under the authority of a country other 

than the United States. 

IMO means the International Maritime 

Organization. 

Major conversion has the meaning 

given in Annex VI. 

MARPOL Protocol has the meaning 

given in 33 U.S.C. 1901. 

Navigable waters has the meaning 

given in 33 U.S.C. 1901. 

Non-Party vessel means a vessel 

flagged by a country that is not a party 

to Annex VI. 

NOX Technical Code means the NOX

Technical Code of Annex VI. 

Operator has the meaning given in 33 

U.S.C. 1901. 

Owner has the meaning given in 33 

U.S.C. 1901. 

Party vessel means a vessel flagged by 

a country that is a party to Annex VI. 

Person has the meaning given in 33 

U.S.C. 1901. 

Public vessels means warships, naval 

auxiliary vessels and other vessels 

owned or operated by a sovereign 

country when engaged in 

noncommercial service. 

Secretary has the meaning given in 33 

U.S.C. 1901. 

U.S.-flagged vessel means a vessel of 

U.S. registry or a vessel operated under 

the authority of the United States. 

We means EPA. 

§ 1043.30 General requirements. 

(a) Manufacturers, owners and 

operators of vessels subject to this part 

must comply with Regulations 13, 14, 

and 18 of Annex VI and related 

provisions of this part. It is the 

responsibility of such manufacturers, 

owners and operators to ensure that all 

employees and other agents operating 

on their behalf comply with these 

requirements. Manufacturers of engines 

subject to this part must comply with all 

applicable requirements of Regulation 

13 of Annex VI and related provisions 

of this part prior to the engine being 

installed in the vessel. Note that 33 

U.S.C. 1907 also prohibits anyone from 

violating any provisions of the MARPOL 

Protocol, whether or not they are a 

manufacturer, owner or operator. 

(b) Engines with power output of 

more than 130 kW that are listed in this 

paragraph (b) must be covered by a valid 

EIAPP certificate unless the engine is 

excluded under paragraph (c) of this 

section. An EIAPP certificate is valid for 

a given engine only if it certifies 

compliance with the Tier of standards 

applicable to that engine and the vessel 

into which it is being installed. Note 

that none of the requirements of this 

paragraph (b) are limited to new 

engines. 

(1) Engines meeting any of the 

following criteria must be covered by a 

valid EIAPP certificate: 

(i) Engines installed (or intended to be 

installed) on vessels that were 

constructed on or after January 1, 2000. 

This includes engines that met the 

definition of ‘‘new marine engine’’ in 40 

CFR 1042.901 at any time on or after 

January 1, 2000, unless such engines are 

installed on vessels that were 

constructed before January 1, 2000. 

(ii) Engines that undergo a major 

conversion on or after January 1, 2000, 

unless the engine have been exempt 

from this requirement under paragraph 

(e) of this section. See section 2.1 of 

Annex VI for a definition of major 

conversion. 

(2) For such engines intended to be 

installed on U.S.-flagged vessels, the 

engine may not be introduced into U.S. 

commerce before it is covered by a valid 

EIAPP certificate, unless it has been 

exempted by EPA under 40 CFR part 

1042 or part 1068. Uninstalled engines 

covered by a valid exemption under 40 

CFR part 1042 or part 1068 may be 

introduced into U.S. commerce without 

a valid EIAPP certificate; however, this 

allowance does affect whether the 

engine must ultimately be covered by an 

EIAPP certificate. For example, engines 

allowed to be temporarily distributed in 

an uncertified configuration under 40 

CFR 1068.260 would not be required to 

be covered by an EIAPP certificate while 

it is covered by the temporary 

exemption under 40 CFR 1068.260; 

however, it would be required to be 

covered by an EIAPP certificate before 

being placed into service. All 

uninstalled marine engines within the 

United States are presumed to be 

intended to be installed on a U.S.- 

flagged vessel, unless there is clear and 

convincing evidence to the contrary. 

(3) For engines installed on Party 

vessels, the engine may not operate in 

the U.S. navigable waters or the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone, or other 

waters designated by the Administrator 

under 1902(a)(5) before it is covered by 

a valid EIAPP certificate. Engines 

installed on non-Party vessels are not 

required to have EIAPP certificates, 

provided the operator can demonstrate 

that the engines conform to the 

requirements of Regulation 13 of Annex 

VI. Evidence of conformity may be 

issued by either the government of a 

country that is party to Annex VI or a 

recognized classification society. For the 

purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘recognized 

classification society’’ means a 

classification society that is a 

participating member of the 

International Association of 

Classification Societies (IACS). 

(c) The following engines are 

excluded from the requirement to have 

an EIAPP certificate (or equivalent 

demonstration of compliance in the case 

of non-Party vessels) or otherwise meet 

the requirements of Regulation 13 of 

Annex VI. 

(1) Spark-ignition engines. 

(2) Non-reciprocating engines. 

(3) Engines that do not use liquid fuel. 

(4) Engines intended to be used solely 

for emergencies. This includes engines 

that power equipment such as pumps 

that are intended to be used solely for 

emergencies and engines installed in 

lifeboats intended to be used solely for 

emergencies. It does not include engines 

to be used for both emergency and nonemergency purposes. 

(d) The requirements specified in 

Annex VI apply for vessels subject to 

this part for operation in U.S. navigable 

waters or the U.S. EEZ. Vessels 

operating in waters deemed to be 

included in an ECA under this part (see 

§ 1043.20) must comply with the 

requirements of Annex VI for operation 

in an ECA. This means that the 

requirements of Regulations 13.5 and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44559 

14.4 of Annex VI apply both in waters 

designated by IMO as an ECA and in all 

shoreward U.S. waters. 

(e) A replacement engine may be 

exempted from Regulation 13 of annex 

VI by EPA if it is identical to the engine 

being replaced and that engine was not 

subject to Regulation 13 of Annex VI. 

Send requests for such exemptions to 

the Designated Certification Officer. 

(f) Compliance with the provisions of 

this part 1043 does not affect your 

responsibilities under 40 CFR part 1042 

for engines subject to that part 1042. 

§ 1043.40 EIAPP certificates. 

(a) Engine manufacturers seeking 

EIAPP certificates for new engines to be 

used in U.S.-flagged vessels must apply 

to EPA for an EIAPP certificate in 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section (which references 40 CFR 

part 1042) and the applicable 

requirements of Regulation 13 of Annex 

VI. Note that only the Administrator or 

the EPA official designated by the 

Administrator may issue EIAPP 

certificates on behalf of the United 

States Government. 

(b) Persons other than engine 

manufacturers may apply for and obtain 

EIAPP certificates for new engines to be 

used in U.S.-flagged vessels by 

complying with the requirements of this 

section (which references 40 CFR part 

1042) and the applicable requirements 

of Regulation 13 of Annex VI. 

(c) In appropriate circumstances, EPA 

may issue an EIAPP certificate under 

this section for non-new engines or 

engines for vessels that will not initially 

be flagged in the U.S. 

(d) The process for obtaining an 

EIAPP certificate is described in 

§ 1043.41. That section references 

regulations in 40 CFR part 1042, which 

apply under the Clean Air Act. 

References in that part to certificates of 

conformity are deemed to mean EIAPP 

certificates. References in that part to 

the Clean Air Act as the applicable 

statute are deemed to mean 33 U.S.C. 

1901–1915. 

(e) For engines that undergo a major 

conversion or for engines installed on 

imported vessels that become subject to 

the requirements of this part, we may 

specify alternate certification provisions 

consistent with the intent of this part. 

§ 1043.41 EIAPP certification process. 

This section describes the process for 

obtaining the EIAPP certificate required 

by § 1043.40. 

(a) You must send the Designated 

Certification Officer (see definition in 

§ 1043.20) a separate application for an 

Engine International Air Pollution 

Prevention (EIAPP) certificate for each 

engine family. An EIAPP certificate is 

valid starting with the indicated 

effective date and is valid for any 

production until such time as the design 

of the engine family changes or more 

stringent emission standards become 

applicable, whichever comes first. You 

may obtain preliminary approval of 

portions of the application consistent 

with the provisions of 40 CFR 1042.210. 

(b) The application must contain all 

the information required by this part. It 

must not include false or incomplete 

statements or information (see 40 CFR 

1042.255). Include the information 

specified in 40 CFR 1042.205 except as 

follows: 

(1) You must include the dates on 

which the test engines were built and 

the locations where the test engines 

were built. 

(2) Include a copy of documentation 

required by Annex VI related to 

maintenance and in-use compliance 

(such as the Technical File and onboard 

NOX verification procedures as 

specified by the NOX Technical Code). 

(3) You are not required to provide 

information required by 40 CFR 

1042.205 about useful life, emission 

labels, deterioration factors, PM 

emissions, not-to-exceed standards. 

(4) You must include a copy of your 

warranty instructions, but are not 

required to describe how you will meet 

warranty obligations. 

(c) We may ask you to include less 

information than we specify in this 

section as long as you maintain all the 

information required by paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(d) You must use good engineering 

judgment for all decisions related to 

your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5). 

(e) An authorized representative of 

your company must approve and sign 

the application. 

(f) See 40 CFR 1042.255 for provisions 

describing how we will process your 

application. 

(g) Your application, including the 

Technical File and onboard NOX

verification procedures, is subject to 

amendment as described in 40 CFR 

1042.225. 

(h) This paragraph (h) describes the 

emission testing you must perform. 

(1) Select an emission-data engine 

from each engine family for testing. For 

engines at or above 560 kW, you may 

use a development engine that is 

equivalent in design to the engine being 

certified. For Category 3 engines, you 

may use a single-cylinder version of the 

engine. Using good engineering 

judgment, select the engine 

configuration most likely to exceed an 

applicable emission standard, 

considering all exhaust emission 

constituents and the range of 

installation options available to vessel 

manufacturers. 

(2) Test your emission-data engines 

using the procedures and equipment 

specified in the NOX Technical Code or 

subpart F of part 1042. We may require 

that your test be witnessed by an EPA 

official. 

(3) We may measure emissions from 

any of your test engines or other engines 

from the engine family, as follows: 

(i) We may decide to do the testing at 

your plant or any other facility. You 

must deliver the test engine to any test 

facility we designate. The test engine 

you provide must include appropriate 

manifolds, aftertreatment devices, 

electronic control units, and other 

emission-related components not 

normally attached directly to the engine 

block. If we do the testing at your plant, 

you must schedule it as soon as possible 

and make available the instruments, 

personnel, and equipment we need. 

(ii) If we measure emissions from one 

of your test engines, the results of that 

testing become the official emission 

results for the engine. Unless we later 

invalidate these data, we may decide 

not to consider your data in determining 

if your engine family meets applicable 

requirements. 

(iii) Before we test one of your 

engines, we may set its adjustable 

parameters to any point within the 

specified adjustable ranges (see 40 CFR 

1042.115(d)). 

(iv) Before we test one of your 

engines, we may calibrate it within 

normal production tolerances for 

anything we do not consider an 

adjustable parameter. 

(4) We may require you to test a 

second engine of the same or different 

configuration in addition to the engine 

tested under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(5) If you use an alternate test 

procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and 

later testing shows that such testing 

does not produce results that are 

equivalent to the procedures otherwise 

required by this part, we may reject data 

you generated using the alternate 

procedure. 

(i) Collect emission data using 

measurements to one more decimal 

place than the applicable standard, then 

round the value to the same number of 

decimal places as the emission 

standard. Compare the rounded 

emission levels to the emission standard 

for each emission-data engine. 

(j) Your engine family is considered in 

compliance with the emission standards 

in Regulation 13 of Annex VI if all 

emission-data engines representing that 

family have test results showing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

emission levels at or below these 

standards. Your engine family is 

deemed not to comply if any emissiondata engine representing that family has 

test results showing an emission level 

above an applicable emission standard 

for any pollutant. 

(k) If we determine your application 

is complete and shows that the engines 

meet all the requirements of this part, 

we will issue an EIAPP certificate for 

your engines. We may make the 

approval subject to additional 

conditions. 

§ 1043.50 Approval of methods to meet 

Tier 1 retrofit NOX standards. 

Regulation 13 of Annex VI provides 

for certification of Approved Methods, 

which are retrofit procedures that 

enable Pre-Tier 1 engines to meet the 

Tier 1 NOX standard of regulation 13 of 

Annex VI. Any person may request 

approval of such a method by 

submitting an application for 

certification of an Approve Method to 

the Designated Certification Officer. If 

we determine that your application 

conforms to the requirements of 

Regulation 13 of Annex VI, we will 

issue a certificate and notify IMO that 

your Approved Method has been 

certified. 

§ 1043.60 Operating requirements for 

engines and vessels subject to this part. 

(a) All of the operating requirements 

and restrictions of Regulations 13, 14, 

and 18 of Annex VI apply for vessels 

subject to this part. 

(b) Nothing in this part limits the 

operating requirements and restrictions 

applicable for engines and vessels 

subject to 40 CFR part 1042 or the 

requirements and restrictions applicable 

for fuels subject to 40 CFR part 80. 

(c) Operators of non-Party vessels 

must comply with the same operating 

requirements and restrictions as apply 

to other vessels under this part. This 

means they must comply with operating 

requirements and restrictions equivalent 

to those of Annex VI related to 

Regulations 13, 14, and 18. 

(d) This paragraph (d) applies for 

vessels that are excluded from 

Regulation 13 of Annex VI under 

§ 1043.10(a) because they operate only 

domestically. Where the operators of 

such vessels comply fully with the fuel 

requirements of 40 CFR part 80, they are 

deemed to be in full compliance with 

the fuel use requirements and 

prohibitions of Regulations 14 and 18 of 

Annex VI. 

§ 1043.70 General recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) Owners and operators of vessels 

subject to this part must keep all records 

required by Regulations 13, 14, and 18 

of Annex VI. We may inspect these 

records as allowed by those Regulations 

and 33 U.S.C. 1901–1915. As part of our 

inspection, we may require that the 

owner submit copies of these records to 

us. 

(b) Nothing in this part limits 

recordkeeping and reporting the 

Secretary may require, nor does it 

preclude the Secretary from providing 

copies of any records to EPA. 

(c) Nothing in this part limits the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements applicable with respect to 

engines and vessels subject to 40 CFR 

part 1042 or with respect to fuels subject 

to 40 CFR part 80. 

(d) This paragraph (d) applies for 

vessels that are excluded from 

Regulation 13 of Annex VI under 

§ 1043.10(a) because they operate only 

domestically. Where the operators of 

such vessels comply fully with the fuel 

requirements of 40 CFR part 80, they are 

deemed to be in full compliance with 

the fuel recordkeeping requirements and 

prohibitions of Annex VI. 

§ 1043.80 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for fuel suppliers. 

If you supply any fuel for an engine 

on any vessel identified in paragraph (a) 

of this section, you must comply with 

the requirements of Regulation 18 of 

Annex VI to provide bunker delivery 

notes to the vessel operators and to keep 

copies for your records. 

(a) The requirements of this section 

apply for fuel delivered to any of the 

following vessels: 

(1) Vessels of 400 gross tonnage and 

above. 

(2) Platforms and drilling rigs. 

(b) Except as allowed by paragraph (c) 

of this section, the bunker delivery note 

must contain the following: 

(1) The name and IMO number of 

receiving vessel. 

(2) Port (or other description of the 

location, if the delivery does not take 

place at a port). 

(3) Date the fuel is delivered to the 

vessel (or date on which the delivery 

begins where the delivery begins on one 

day and ends on a later day). 

(4) Name, address, and telephone 

number of fuel supplier. 

(5) Fuel type and designation under 

40 CFR part 80. 

(6) Quantity in metric tons. 

(7) Density at 15 °C, in kg/m 3. 

(8) Sulfur content in weight percent. 

(9) A signed statement by an 

authorized representative of the fuel 

supplier certifying that the fuel supplied 

conforms to Regulations 14 and 18 of 

Annex VI consistent with its 

designation, intended use, and the date 

on which it is to be used. For example, 

with respect to conformity to Regulation 

14 of Annex VI, a fuel designated and 

intended for use in an ECA any time 

between July 1, 2010 and January 1 2015 

may not have a sulfur content above 

1.00 weight percent. 

(c) Measure density and sulfur 

content according to the specifications 

of Annex VI, or other methods we 

approve as equivalent. Where the 

density and/or sulfur content of the 

delivered fuel cannot be measured, we 

may allow the use of alternate methods 

to specify the density and/or sulfur 

content of the fuel. For example, where 

fuel is supplied from multiple tanks on 

a supply vessel, we may allow the 

density and sulfur content of the fuel to 

be calculated as a weighted average of 

the measured densities and sulfur 

contents of the fuel that is supplied 

from each tank. 

§ 1043.90 Emission Control Areas. 

[Reserved] 

PART 1045—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM SPARK–IGNITION PROPULSION 

MARINE ENGINES AND VESSELS 

200. The authority citation for part 

1045 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

201. Section 1045.103 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1045.103 What exhaust emission 

standards must my outboard and personal 

watercraft engines meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) Averaging, banking, and trading. 

You may generate or use emission 

credits under the averaging, banking, 

and trading (ABT) program described in 

subpart H of this part for demonstrating 

compliance with HC+NOX emission 

standards. For CO emissions, you may 

generate or use emission credits for 

averaging as described in subpart H of 

this part, but such credits may not be 

banked or traded. To generate or use 

emission credits, you must specify a 

family emission limit for each pollutant 

you include in the ABT program for 

each engine family. These family 

emission limits serve as the emission 

standards for the engine family with 

respect to all required testing instead of 

the standards specified in this section. 

An engine family meets emission 

standards even if its family emission 

limit is higher than the standard, as long 

as you show that the whole averaging 

set of applicable engine families meets 

the emission standards using emission 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44561 

credits and the engines within the 

family meet the family emission limit. 

The following FEL caps apply: 

* * * * * 

202. Section 1045.125 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(3) and revising 

paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1045.125 What maintenance instructions 

must I give to buyers? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) You may not schedule critical 

emission-related maintenance within 

the useful life period for aftertreatment 

devices, pulse-air valves, fuel injectors, 

oxygen sensors, electronic control units, 

superchargers, or turbochargers, except 

as specified in paragraph (a)(3), (b), or 

(c) of this section. 

(3) You may ask us to approve a 

maintenance interval shorter than that 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. In your request you must 

describe the proposed maintenance 

step, recommend the maximum feasible 

interval for this maintenance, include 

your rationale with supporting evidence 

to support the need for the maintenance 

at the recommended interval, and 

demonstrate that the maintenance will 

be done at the recommended interval on 

in-use engines. In considering your 

request, we will evaluate the 

information you provide and any other 

available information to establish 

alternate specifications for maintenance 

intervals, if appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Special maintenance. You may 

specify more frequent maintenance to 

address problems related to special 

situations, such as atypical engine 

operation. You must clearly state that 

this additional maintenance is 

associated with the special situation you 

are addressing. We may disapprove your 

maintenance instructions if we 

determine that you have specified 

special maintenance steps to address 

engine operation that is not atypical, or 

that the maintenance is unlikely to 

occur in use. If we determine that 

certain maintenance items do not 

qualify as special maintenance under 

this paragraph (c), you may identify this 

as recommended additional 

maintenance under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

203. Section 1045.140 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.140 What is my engine’s maximum 

engine power? 

(a) An engine configuration’s 

maximum engine power is the 

maximum brake power point on the 

nominal power curve for the engine 

configuration, as defined in this section. 

Round the power value to the nearest 

whole kilowatt for engines above 30 kW 

and to the nearest 0.1 kilowatt for 

engines at or below 30 kW. 

* * * * * 

204. Section 1045.145 is amended by 

adding paragraph (o) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.145 Are there interim provisions 

that apply only for a limited time? 

* * * * * 

(o) Banking early credits for jet boat 

engines. Banked emission credits that 

were originally generated from outboard 

and personal watercraft engines under 

40 CFR part 91 may be used to certify 

jet boat engines under the provisions 

§ 1045.660. 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

205. Section 1045.201 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.201 What are the general 

requirements for obtaining a certificate of 

conformity? 

* * * * * 

(h) For engines that become new after 

being placed into service, such as 

engines installed on imported vessels or 

engines converted to run on a different 

fuel, we may specify alternate 

certification provisions consistent with 

the intent of this part. See § 1045.645 

and the definition of ‘‘new propulsion 

marine engine’’ in § 1045.801. 

206. Section 1045.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.220 How do I amend the 

maintenance instructions in my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

* * * * * 

207. Section 1045.240 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.240 How do I demonstrate that my 

engine family complies with exhaust 

emission standards? 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

engine family is considered in 

compliance with the duty-cycle 

emission standards in § 1045.103 or 

§ 1045.105 if all emission-data engines 

representing that family have test results 

showing deteriorated emission levels at 

or below these standards. This includes 

all test points over the course of the 

durability demonstration. Note that your 

FELs are considered to be the applicable 

emission standards with which you 

must comply if you participate in the 

ABT program in subpart H of this part. 

See paragraph (e) of this section for 

provisions related to demonstrating 

compliance with NTE standards. 

(b) Your engine family is deemed not 

to comply with the duty-cycle emission 

standards in § 1045.103 or § 1045.105 if 

any emission-data engine representing 

that family has test results showing a 

deteriorated emission level for any 

pollutant that is above an applicable 

emission standard. Similarly, your 

engine family is deemed not to comply 

if any emission-data engine representing 

that family has test results showing any 

emission level above the applicable notto-exceed emission standard for any 

pollutant. The provisions of this 

paragraph (b) apply for all test points 

over the course of the durability 

demonstration. 

* * * * * 

(e) Use good engineering judgment to 

demonstrate compliance with NTE 

standards based on testing with lowhour engines. You may, but are not 

required to, apply the same 

deterioration factors used to show 

compliance with the applicable dutycycle standards. 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

208. Section 1045.405 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1045.405 How does this program work? 

* * * * * 

(c) Send us an in-use testing plan for 

engine families selected for testing. 

Complete the testing within 24 calendar 

months after we receive your plan. Send 

us the in-use testing plan according to 

the following deadlines: 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

209. Section 1045.515 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(5) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 1045.515 What are the test procedures 

related to not-to-exceed standards? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) For two-stroke engines not 

equipped with a catalyst, the NTE zone 

described in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section is divided into subzones for 

testing to determine compliance with 

the applicable NTE standards. Measure 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

emissions to get an NTE result by 

collecting emissions at five points as 

described in this paragraph (c)(5). 

Calculate a weighted test result for these 

emission measurements using the 

weighting factors from Appendix II of 

this part for the corresponding modal 

result (similar to discrete-mode testing 

for certification). Test engines over the 

following modes corresponding to the 

certification duty cycle: 

* * * * * 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

210. Section 1045.701 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d), (g), (j)(4) and 

(j)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.701 General provisions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Sterndrive/inboard engines 

certified under § 1045.660 for jet boats 

may use HC+NOx and CO exhaust 

credits generated from outboard and 

personal watercraft engines, as long as 

the credit-using engine is the same 

model as an engine model from an 

outboard or personal watercraft family. 

Such emission credits that you generate 

under this part 1045 may be used for 

averaging, but not for banking or 

trading. The FEL caps for such jet boat 

families are the HC+NOx and CO 

standard for outboard and personal 

watercraft engines. U.S.-directed sales 

from jet boat engines using the 

provisions of this paragraph (d) may not 

be greater than the U.S.-directed sales of 

the same engine model for outboard or 

personal watercraft engines. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission credits may be used for 

averaging in the model year they are 

generated or banked for averaging in 

future model years, except that CO 

emission credits for outboard and 

personal watercraft engines may not be 

banked or traded. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(4) Engines or vessels not subject to 

the requirements of this part, such as 

those excluded under § 1045.5. 

(5) Any other engines or vessels 

where we indicate elsewhere in this part 

1045 that they are not to be included in 

the calculations of this subpart. 

211. Section 1045.705 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1045.705 How do I generate and 

calculate exhaust emission credits? 

* * * * * 

(a) For each participating family, 

calculate positive or negative emission 

credits relative to the otherwise 

applicable emission standard. Calculate 

positive emission credits for a family 

that has an FEL below the standard. 

Calculate negative emission credits for a 

family that has an FEL above the 

standard. Sum your positive and 

negative credits for the model year 

before rounding. Round the sum of 

emission credits to the nearest kilogram 

(kg) using consistent units throughout 

the following equation: 

Emission credits (kg) = (STD¥FEL) × 

(Volume) × (Power) × (UL) × (LF) 

×(10¥3) 

Where: 

STD = the emission standard, in g/kW-hr. 

FEL = the family emission limit for the 

family, in g/kW-hr. 

Volume = the number of engines eligible to 

participate in the averaging, banking, 

and trading program within the given 

family during the model year, as 

described in § 1045.701(j). 

Power = maximum engine power for the 

family, in kilowatts (see § 1045.140). 

UL = The useful life for the given family. 

LF = load factor. Use 0.207. We may specify 

a different load factor if we approve the 

use of special test procedures for an 

engine family under 40 CFR 

1065.10(c)(2), consistent with good 

engineering judgment. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

212. Section 1045.801 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Fuel system’’ 

and paragraphs (2) and (5)(iii) of the 

definition of ‘‘Model year’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 1045.801 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

Fuel system means all components 

involved in transporting, metering, and 

mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the 

combustion chamber(s), including the 

fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel 

filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuelinjection components, and all fuelsystem vents. In the case where the fuel 

tank cap or other components 

(excluding fuel lines) are directly 

mounted on the fuel tank, they are 

considered to be a part of the fuel tank. 

* * * * * 

Model year * * * 

(2) For an engine that is converted to 

a propulsion marine engine after being 

certified and placed into service as a 

motor vehicle engine, a nonroad engine 

that is not a propulsion marine engine, 

or a stationary engine, model year 

means the calendar year in which the 

engine was originally produced. For an 

engine that is converted to a propulsion 

marine engine after being placed into 

service as a motor vehicle engine, a 

nonroad engine that is not a propulsion 

marine engine, or a stationary engine 

without having been certified, model 

year means the calendar year in which 

the engine becomes a new propulsion 

marine engine. (See definition of ‘‘new 

propulsion marine engine,’’ paragraph 

(2).) 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) For imported engines described 

in paragraph (5)(iii) of the definition of 

‘‘new propulsion marine nonroad 

engine,’’ model year means the calendar 

year in which the engine is assembled 

in its imported configuration, unless 

specified otherwise in this part or in 40 

CFR part 1068. 

* * * * * 

PART 1048—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW, LARGE NONROAD 

SPARK–IGNITION ENGINES 

213. The authority citation for part 

1048 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

214. Section 1048.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.15 Do any other regulation parts 

apply to me? 

* * * * * 

(b) Part 1065 of this chapter describes 

procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing engines to 

measure exhaust emissions. Subpart F 

of this part 1048 describes how to apply 

the provisions of part 1065 of this 

chapter to determine whether engines 

meet the exhaust emission standards in 

this part. 

* * * * * 

215. A new § 1048.30 is added to 

subpart A to read as follows: 

§ 1048.30 Submission of information. 

(a) This part includes various 

requirements to record data or other 

information. Refer to § 1048.825 and 40 

CFR 1068.25 regarding recordkeeping 

requirements. If recordkeeping 

requirements are not specified, store 

these records in any format and on any 

media and keep them readily available 

for one year after you send an associated 

application for certification, or one year 

after you generate the data if they do not 

support an application for certification. 

You must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them. We may review them at any time. 

(b) The regulations in § 1048.255 and 

40 CFR 1068.101 describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. This includes information 

not related to certification. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44563 

(c) Send all reports and requests for 

approval to the Designated Compliance 

Officer (see § 1048.801). 

(d) Any written information we 

require you to send to or receive from 

another company is deemed to be a 

required record under this section. Such 

records are also deemed to be 

submissions to EPA. We may require 

you to send us these records whether or 

not you are a certificate holder. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

216. Section 1048.120 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.120 What emission-related warranty 

requirements apply to me? 

* * * * * 

(b) Warranty period. Your emissionrelated warranty for evaporative 

emission controls must be valid for at 

least two years. Your emission-related 

warranty for exhaust emission controls 

must be valid for at least 50 percent of 

the engine’s useful life in hours of 

operation or at least three years, 

whichever comes first. In the case of a 

high-cost warranted part, the warranty 

must be valid for at least 70 percent of 

the engine’s useful life in hours of 

operation or at least five years, 

whichever comes first. You may offer an 

emission-related warranty more 

generous than we require. The emissionrelated warranty for the engine may not 

be shorter than any published warranty 

you offer without charge for the engine. 

Similarly, the emission-related warranty 

for any component may not be shorter 

than any published warranty you offer 

without charge for that component. If an 

engine has no hour meter, we base the 

warranty periods in this paragraph (b) 

only on the engine’s age (in years). The 

warranty period begins when the engine 

is placed into service. 

* * * * * 

217. Section 1048.125 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(4) and revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.125 What maintenance instructions 

must I give to buyers? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) You may ask us to approve a 

maintenance interval shorter than that 

specified in paragraphs (a)(2) of this 

section. In your request you must 

describe the proposed maintenance 

step, recommend the maximum feasible 

interval for this maintenance, include 

your rationale with supporting evidence 

to support the need for the maintenance 

at the recommended interval, and 

demonstrate that the maintenance will 

be done at the recommended interval on 

in-use engines. In considering your 

request, we will evaluate the 

information you provide and any other 

available information to establish 

alternate specifications for maintenance 

intervals, if appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Special maintenance. You may 

specify more frequent maintenance to 

address problems related to special 

situations, such as substandard fuel or 

atypical engine operation. For example, 

you may specify more frequent cleaning 

of fuel system components for engines 

you have reason to believe will be using 

fuel that causes substantially more 

engine performance problems than 

commercial fuels of the same type that 

are generally available across the United 

States. You must clearly state that this 

additional maintenance is associated 

with the special situation you are 

addressing. We may disapprove your 

maintenance instructions if we 

determine that you have specified 

special maintenance steps to address 

engine operation that is not atypical, or 

that the maintenance is unlikely to 

occur in use. If we determine that 

certain maintenance items do not 

qualify as special maintenance under 

this paragraph (c), you may identify this 

as recommended additional 

maintenance under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

218. Section 1048.201 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.201 What are the general 

requirements for obtaining a certificate of 

conformity? 

* * * * * 

(h) For engines that become new after 

being placed into service, such as 

engines converted to nonroad use after 

being used in motor vehicles, we may 

specify alternate certification provisions 

consistent with the intent of this part. 

See the definition of ‘‘new nonroad 

engine’’ in § 1048.801. 

219. Section 1048.220 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1048.220 How do I amend the 

maintenance instructions in my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

* * * * * 

(c) You need not request approval if 

you are making only minor corrections 

(such as correcting typographical 

mistakes), clarifying your maintenance 

instructions, or changing instructions 

for maintenance unrelated to emission 

control. We may ask you to send us 

copies of maintenance instructions 

revised under this paragraph (c). 

220. Section 1048.240 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.240 How do I demonstrate that my 

engine family complies with exhaust 

emission standards? 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

engine family is considered in 

compliance with the applicable 

numerical emission standards in 

§ 1048.101(a) and (b) if all emission-data 

engines representing that family have 

test results showing deteriorated 

emission levels at or below these 

standards. This includes all test points 

over the course of the durability 

demonstration. See paragraph (e) of this 

section for provisions related to 

demonstrating compliance with fieldtesting standards. 

(b) Your engine family is deemed not 

to comply if any emission-data engine 

representing that family has test results 

showing a deteriorated emission level 

for any pollutant that is above an 

applicable emission standard from 

§ 1048.101(a) and (b). Similarly, your 

engine family is deemed not to comply 

if any emission-data engine representing 

that family has test results showing any 

emission level above the applicable 

field-testing standard for any pollutant. 

This includes all test points over the 

course of the durability demonstration. 

* * * * * 

(e) Use good engineering judgment to 

demonstrate compliance with fieldtesting standards based on testing with 

low-hour engines. You may, but are not 

required to, apply the same 

deterioration factors used to show 

compliance with the applicable dutycycle standards. 

221. Section 1048.245 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.245 How do I demonstrate that my 

engine family complies with evaporative 

emission standards? 

* * * * * 

(e) You may demonstrate that your 

engine family complies with the 

evaporative emission standards by 

demonstrating that you use the 

following control technologies: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44564 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(1) For certification to the standards 

specified in § 1048.105(c), with the 

following technologies: 

(i) Use a tethered or self-closing gas 

cap on a fuel tank that stays sealed up 

to a positive pressure of 24.5 kPa (3.5 

psig); however, they may contain air 

inlets that open when there is a vacuum 

pressure inside the tank. Nonmetal fuel 

tanks must also use one of the 

qualifying designs for controlling 

permeation emissions specified in 40 

CFR 1060.240. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(2) For certification to the standards 

specified in § 1048.105(d), 

demonstrating that you use design 

features to prevent fuel boiling under all 

normal operation. If you install engines 

in equipment, you may do this using 

fuel temperature data measured during 

normal operation. Otherwise, you may 

do this by including appropriate 

information in your emission-related 

installation instructions. 

(3) We may establish additional 

options for design-based certification 

where we find that new test data 

demonstrate that a technology will 

ensure compliance with the emission 

standards in this section. 

222. Section 1048.255 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.255 What decisions may EPA make 

regarding my certificate of conformity? 

* * * * * 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

engine family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

223. Section 1048.405 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.405 How does this program work? 

* * * * * 

(b) Send us an in-use testing plan 

within 12 calendar months after we 

direct you to test a particular engine 

family. Complete the testing within 24 

calendar months after we receive your 

plan. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

224. Section 1048.505 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 1048.505 How do I test engines using 

steady-state duty cycles, including rampedmodal testing? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) The following duty cycle applies 

for discrete-mode testing: 

TABLE 3 OF § 1048.505 

Mode number Engine speed Torque 

(percent)1

Minimum time 

in mode 

(minutes) 

Weighting factors 

1 ............................................. Maximum test .......................................................................... 100 3.0 0.50 

2 ............................................. Maximum test .......................................................................... 75 3.0 0.50 

1The percent torque is relative to the maximum torque at maximum test speed. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

225. Section 1048.801 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘Carryover’’ and 

‘‘Date of manufacture’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 1048.801 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

Carryover means relating to 

certification based on emission data 

generated from an earlier model year as 

described in § 1042.235(d). This 

generally requires that the engines in 

the engine family do not differ in any 

aspect related to emissions. 

* * * * * 

Date of manufacture has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

* * * * * 

PART 1051— CONTROL OF 

EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL 

ENGINES AND VEHICLES 

226. The authority citation for part 

1051 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

227. Section 1051.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1051.15 Do any other regulation parts 

apply to me? 

(a) Parts 86 and 1065 of this chapter 

describe procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing vehicles and 

engines to measure exhaust emissions. 

Subpart F of this part 1051 describes 

how to apply the provisions of parts 86 

and 1065 of this chapter to determine 

whether vehicles meet the exhaust 

emission standards in this part. 

* * * * * 

228. Section 1051.20 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1051.20 May I certify a recreational 

engine instead of the vehicle? 

* * * * * 

(g) Apply the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 1068 for engines certified under 

this section as if they were subject to 

engine-based standards. For example, 

you may rely on the provisions of 40 

CFR 1068.261 to have vehicle 

manufacturers install catalysts that you 

describe in your application for 

certification. 

229. A new § 1051.30 is added to 

subpart A to read as follows: 

§ 1051.30 Submission of information. 

(a) This part includes various 

requirements to record data or other 

information. Refer to § 1051.825 and 40 

CFR 1068.25 regarding recordkeeping 

requirements. If recordkeeping 

requirements are not specified, store 

these records in any format and on any 

media and keep them readily available 

for one year after you send an associated 

application for certification, or one year 

after you generate the data if they do not 

support an application for certification. 

You must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them. We may review them at any time. 

(b) The regulations in § 1051.255 and 

40 CFR 1068.101 describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. This includes information 

not related to certification. 

(c) Send all reports and requests for 

approval to the Designated Compliance 

Officer (see § 1051.801). 

(d) Any written information we 

require you to send to or receive from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44565 

another company is deemed to be a 

required record under this section. Such 

records are also deemed to be 

submissions to EPA. We may require 

you to send us these records whether or 

not you are a certificate holder. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

230. Section 1051.125 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(3) and revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1051.125 What maintenance instructions 

must I give to buyers? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) You may ask us to approve a 

maintenance interval shorter than that 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. In your request you must 

describe the proposed maintenance 

step, recommend the maximum feasible 

interval for this maintenance, include 

your rationale with supporting evidence 

to support the need for the maintenance 

at the recommended interval, and 

demonstrate that the maintenance will 

be done at the recommended interval on 

in-use engines. In considering your 

request, we will evaluate the 

information you provide and any other 

available information to establish 

alternate specifications for maintenance 

intervals, if appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Special maintenance. You may 

specify more frequent maintenance to 

address problems related to special 

situations, such as atypical engine 

operation. You must clearly state that 

this additional maintenance is 

associated with the special situation you 

are addressing. We may disapprove your 

maintenance instructions if we 

determine that you have specified 

special maintenance steps to address 

engine operation that is not atypical, or 

that the maintenance is unlikely to 

occur in use. If we determine that 

certain maintenance items do not 

qualify as special maintenance under 

this paragraph (c), you may identify this 

as recommended additional 

maintenance under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

231. Section 1051.135 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1051.135 How must I label and identify 

the vehicles I produce? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(12) State: ‘‘THIS VEHICLE MEETS 

U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR [MODEL 

YEAR] [SNOWMOBILES or OFF-ROAD 

MOTORCYCLES or ATVs or OFF-ROAD 

UTILITY VEHICLES].’’. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

232. Section 1051.201 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1051.201 What are the general 

requirements for obtaining a certificate of 

conformity? 

* * * * * 

(h) For vehicles that become new after 

being placed into service, such as 

vehicles converted to run on a different 

fuel, we may specify alternate 

certification provisions consistent with 

the intent of this part. See § 1051.650 

and the definition of ‘‘new’’ in 

§ 1051.801. 

233. Section 1051.220 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1051.220 How do I amend the 

maintenance instructions in my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

* * * * * 

(c) You need not request approval if 

you are making only minor corrections 

(such as correcting typographical 

mistakes), clarifying your maintenance 

instructions, or changing instructions 

for maintenance unrelated to emission 

control. We may ask you to send us 

copies of maintenance instructions 

revised under this paragraph (c). 

234. Section 1051.255 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1051.255 What decisions may EPA make 

regarding my certificate of conformity? 

* * * * * 

(b) We may deny your application for 

certification if we determine that your 

engine family fails to comply with 

emission standards or other 

requirements of this part or the Clean 

Air Act. We will base our decision on 

all available information. If we deny 

your application, we will explain why 

in writing. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

235. Section 1051.801 is amended by 

revising paragraph (2) of the definition 

for ‘‘All-terrain vehicle’’ and the 

definition for ‘‘Offroad utility vehicle’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 1051.801 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

All-terrain vehicle means * * * 

(2) Other all-terrain vehicles have 

three or more wheels and one or more 

seats, are designed for operation over 

rough terrain, are intended primarily for 

transportation, and have a maximum 

vehicle speed higher than 25 miles per 

hour . Golf carts generally do not meet 

these criteria since they are generally 

not designed for operation over rough 

terrain. 

* * * * * 

Offroad utility vehicle means a 

nonroad vehicle that has four or more 

wheels, seating for two or more persons, 

is designed for operation over rough 

terrain, and has either a rear payload 

capacity of 350 pounds or more or 

seating for six or more passengers. 

Vehicles intended primarily for 

recreational purposes that are not 

capable of transporting six passengers 

(such as dune buggies) are not offroad 

utility vehicles. (Note: § 1051.1(a) 

specifies that some offroad utility 

vehicles are required to meet the 

requirements that apply for all-terrain 

vehicles.) Unless there is significant 

information to the contrary, we consider 

vehicles to be intended primarily for 

recreational purposes if they are 

marketed for recreational use, have a 

rear payload capacity no greater than 

1,000 pounds, and meet at least five of 

the following criteria: 

(1) Front and rear suspension travel is 

greater than 18 cm. 

(2) The vehicle has no tilt bed. 

(3) The vehicle has no mechanical 

power take-off (PTO) and no 

permanently installed hydraulic system 

for operating utility-oriented accessory 

devices. 

(4) The engine has in-use operating 

speeds at or above 4,000 rpm. 

(5) Maximum vehicle speed is greater 

than 35 miles per hour. 

(6) The speed at which the engine 

produces peak power is above 4,5000 

rpm and the engine is equivalent to 

engines in ATVs that you have certified. 

For the purpose of this paragraph (6), 

the engine is considered equivalent if it 

could be included in the same emission 

family based on the characteristics 

specified in § 1051.230(b). 

(7) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating is no 

greater than 3,750 pounds. This is the 

maximum design loaded weight of the 

vehicle as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803– 

01, including passengers and cargo. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

PART 1054—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW, SMALL NONROAD 

SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AND 

EQUIPMENT 

236. The authority citation for part 

1054 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

237. Section 1054.1 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1054.1 Does this part apply for my 

engines and equipment? 

(a) * * * 

(4) This part 1054 applies for other 

spark-ignition engines as follows: 

(i) The provisions of §§ 1054.620 and 

1054.801 apply for new engines used 

solely for competition beginning 

January 1, 2010. 

(ii) The provisions of §§ 1054.660 and 

1054.801 apply for new engines used in 

emergency rescue equipment beginning 

January 1, 2010. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

238. Section 1054.125 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(4) and revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1054.125 What maintenance instructions 

must I give to buyers? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) You may ask us to approve a 

maintenance interval shorter than that 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. In your request you must 

describe the proposed maintenance 

step, recommend the maximum feasible 

interval for this maintenance, include 

your rationale with supporting evidence 

to support the need for the maintenance 

at the recommended interval, and 

demonstrate that the maintenance will 

be done at the recommended interval on 

in-use engines. In considering your 

request, we will evaluate the 

information you provide and any other 

available information to establish 

alternate specifications for maintenance 

intervals, if appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Special maintenance. You may 

specify more frequent maintenance to 

address problems related to special 

situations, such as atypical engine 

operation. You must clearly state that 

this additional maintenance is 

associated with the special situation you 

are addressing. We may disapprove your 

maintenance instructions if we 

determine that you have specified 

special maintenance steps to address 

engine operation that is not atypical, or 

that the maintenance is unlikely to 

occur in use. If we determine that 

certain maintenance items do not 

qualify as special maintenance under 

this paragraph (c), you may identify this 

as recommended additional 

maintenance under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

239. Section 1054.201 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1054.201 What are the general 

requirements for obtaining a certificate of 

conformity? 

* * * * * 

(h) For engines that become new after 

being placed into service, such as 

engines converted to run on a different 

fuel, we may specify alternate 

certification provisions consistent with 

the intent of this part. See § 1054.645 

and the definition of ‘‘new nonroad 

engine’’ in § 1054.801. 

240. Section 1054.205 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1054.205 What must I include in my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(b) Explain how the emission control 

systems operate. Describe the 

evaporative emission controls and show 

how your design will prevent running 

loss emissions, if applicable. Also 

describe in detail all system 

components for controlling exhaust 

emissions, including all auxiliary 

emission control devices (AECDs) and 

all fuel-system components you will 

install on any production or test engine. 

Identify the part number of each 

component you describe. For this 

paragraph (b), treat as separate AECDs 

any devices that modulate or activate 

differently from each other. Include 

sufficient detail to allow us to evaluate 

whether the AECDs are consistent with 

the defeat device prohibition of 

§ 1054.115. For example, if your engines 

will routinely experience in-use 

operation that differs from the specified 

duty cycle for certification, describe 

how the fuel-metering system responds 

to varying speeds and loads not 

represented by the duty cycle. If you test 

an emission-data engine by disabling 

the governor for full-load operation such 

that the engine operates at an air-fuel 

ratio significantly different than under 

full-load operation with an installed 

governor, explain why these differences 

are necessary or appropriate. For 

conventional carbureted engines 

without electronic fuel controls, it is 

sufficient to state that there is no 

significant difference in air-fuel ratios. 

* * * * * 

241. Section 1054.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1054.220 How do I amend the 

maintenance instructions in my 

application? 

* * * * * 

(a) If you are decreasing or 

eliminating any specified maintenance, 

you may distribute the new 

maintenance instructions to your 

customers 30 days after we receive your 

request, unless we disapprove your 

request. This would generally include 

replacing one maintenance step with 

another. We may approve a shorter time 

or waive this requirement. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

242. Section 1054.601 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1054.601 What compliance provisions 

apply to these engines? 

* * * * * 

(c) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.215 

apply for cases in which the 

manufacturer takes possession of 

engines for purposes of recovering 

components as described in this 

paragraph (c). Note that this paragraph 

(c) does not apply for certified engines 

that still have the emission control 

information label since such engines do 

not need an exemption. 

(1) You must label the engine as 

specified in 40 CFR 1068.215(c)(3), 

except that the label may be removable 

as specified in 40 CFR 1068.45(b). 

(2) You may not resell the engine. For 

components other than the engine 

block, you may generate revenue from 

the sale of the components that you 

recover, or from the sale of new engines 

containing these components. You may 

also use components other than the 

engine block for engine rebuilds as 

otherwise allowed under the 

regulations. You may use the engine 

block from an engine that is exempted 

under this paragraph (c) only to make a 

new engine, and then only where such 

an engine has a separate identity from 

the original engine. 

(3) Once the engine has reached its 

final destination, you may stop 

collecting records describing the 

engine’s final disposition and how you 

use the engine. This does not affect the 

requirement to maintain the records you 

have already collected under 40 CFR 

1068.215. This also does not affect the 

requirement to maintain records for new 

engines. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44567 

243. Section 1054.690 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d), (f), and (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1054.690 What bond requirements apply 

for certified engines? 

* * * * * 

(d) The minimum value of the bond 

is $500,000. A higher bond value may 

apply based on the per-engine bond 

values shown in Table 1 to this section 

and on the U.S.-directed production 

volume from each displacement 

grouping for the calendar model year. 

For example, if you have projected U.S.- 

directed production volumes of 10,000 

engines with 180 cc displacement and 

10,000 engines with 400 cc 

displacement in 2013, the appropriate 

bond amount is $750,000. Adjust the 

value of the bond as follows: 

(1) If your estimated or actual U.S.- 

directed production volume in any later 

year increases beyond the level 

appropriate for your current bond 

payment, you must post additional bond 

to reflect the increased volume within 

90 days after you change your estimate 

or determine the actual production 

volume. You may not decrease your 

bond. 

(2) If you sell engines without 

aftertreatment components under the 

provisions of § 1054.610, you must 

increase the per-engine bond values for 

the current year by 20 percent. 

TABLE 1 TO § 1054.690—PER-ENGINE

BOND VALUES

For engines with displacement falling in the following 

ranges . . . 

The per-engine bond 

value is . . . 

Disp. < 225 cc ...................... $25 

225 ≤ Disp. < 740 cc ............ 50 

740 ≤ Disp. ≤ 1,000 cc ......... 100 

Disp. > 1,000 cc ................... 200 

* * * * * 

(f) You may meet the bond 

requirements of this section by 

obtaining a bond from a third-party 

surety that is cited in the U.S. 

Department of Treasury Circular 570, 

‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of 

Authority as Acceptable Sureties on 

Federal Bonds and as Acceptable 

Reinsuring Companies’’ (http://www.

fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html#certified). 

You must maintain this bond for every 

year in which you sell certified engines. 

The surety agent remains responsible for 

obligations under the bond for two years 

after the bond is cancelled or expires 

without being replaced. 

* * * * * 

(j) The following provisions apply if 

you import engines for resale when 

those engines have been certified by 

someone else (or equipment containing 

such engines): 

(1) You and the certificate holder are 

each responsible for compliance with 

the requirements of this part and the 

Clean Air Act. For example, we may 

require you to comply with the warranty 

requirements in § 1054.120. 

(2) You do not need to post bond if 

you or the certificate holder complies 

with the bond requirements of this 

section. You also do not need to post 

bond if the certificate holder complies 

with the asset requirements of this 

section and the repair-network 

provisions of § 1054.120(f)(4). 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

244. Section 1054.730 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1054.730 What ABT reports must I send 

to EPA? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) The projected and actual 

production volumes for the model year 

with a point of first retail sale in the 

United States, as described in 

§ 1054.701(i). For fuel tanks, state the 

production volume in terms of surface 

area and production volume for each 

fuel tank configuration and state the 

total surface area for the emission 

family. If you changed an FEL during 

the model year, identify the actual 

production volume associated with each 

FEL. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

245. Section 1054.801 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Oxides of 

nitrogen’’ and ‘‘Total hydrocarbon 

equivalent’’ and adding a definition for 

‘‘Point of first retail sale’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001 

* * * * * 

Point of first retail sale means the 

location at which the initial retail sale 

occurs. This generally means an 

equipment dealership, but may also 

include an engine seller or distributor in 

cases where loose engines are sold to 

the general public for uses such as 

replacement engines. 

* * * * * 

Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

This generally means the sum of the 

carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and 

aldehydes, or other organic compounds 

that are measured separately as 

contained in a gas sample, expressed as 

exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled engines. The hydrogen-to-carbon 

mass ratio of the equivalent 

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. 

* * * * * 

PART 1060—CONTROL OF 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM 

NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD AND 

STATIONARY EQUIPMENT 

246. The authority citation for part 

1060 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

247. Section 1060.103 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1060.103 What permeation emission 

control requirements apply for fuel tanks? 

* * * * * 

(e) Fuel caps may be certified 

separately relative to the permeation 

emission standard in paragraph (b) of 

this section using the test procedures 

specified in § 1060.521. Fuel caps 

certified alone do not need to meet the 

emission standard. Rather, fuel caps 

would be certified with a Family 

Emission Limit, which is used for 

demonstrating that fuel tanks meet the 

emission standard as described in 

§ 1060.520(b)(5). For the purposes of 

this paragraph (e), gaskets or O-rings 

that are produced as part of an assembly 

with the fuel cap are considered part of 

the fuel cap. 

* * * * * 

248. Section 1060.135 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1060.135 How must I label and identify 

the engines and equipment I produce? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) Readily visible in the final 

installation. It may be under a hinged 

door or other readily opened cover. It 

may not be hidden by any cover 

attached with screws or any similar 

designs. Labels on marine vessels 

(except personal watercraft) must be 

visible from the helm. 

* * * * * 

249. Section 1060.137 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1060.137 How must I label and identify 

the fuel-system components I produce? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Fuel caps, as described in this 

paragraph (a)(4). Fuel caps must be 

labeled if they are separately certified 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44568 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

under § 1060.103 or if the diurnal 

control system requires that the fuel 

tank hold pressure. Fuel caps must also 

be labeled if they are mounted directly 

on the fuel tank, unless the fuel tank is 

certified based on a worst-case fuel cap. 

(5) Replaceable pressure-relief 

assemblies. This does not apply if the 

component is integral to the fuel tank or 

fuel cap. If the assembly is too small to 

be properly labeled, you may omit the 

label, provided that you identify the 

part numbers in your maintenance and 

installation instructions. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

250. Section 1060.515 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1060.515 How do I test EPA Nonroad 

Fuel Lines and EPA Cold-Weather Fuel 

Lines for permeation emissions? 

* * * * * 

(c) Measure fuel line permeation 

emissions using the equipment and 

procedures for weight-loss testing 

specified in SAE J30 or SAE J1527 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1060.810). Start the measurement 

procedure within 8 hours after draining 

and refilling the fuel line. Perform the 

emission test over a sampling period of 

14 days. Determine your final emission 

result based on the highest measured 

valued over the 14-day period. 

* * * * * 

251. Section 1060.520 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By adding paragraph (a)(4). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(3). 

c. By revising paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(B), 

(d)(8), and (d)(10). 

§ 1060.520 How do I test fuel tanks for 

permeation emissions? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Perform durability cycles on fuel 

caps intended for use with handheld 

equipment by putting the fuel cap on 

and taking it off 300 times. Tighten the 

fuel cap each time in a way that 

represents the typical in-use experience. 

(b) * * * 

(3) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) You may seal the fuel inlet with 

a nonpermeable covering if you 

separately account for permeation 

emissions from the fuel cap. This may 

involve a separate measurement of 

permeation emissions from a worst-case 

fuel cap as described in § 1060.521. This 

may also involve specifying a worst-case 

Family Emission Limit based on 

separately certified fuel caps as 

described in § 1060.103(e). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(8) Measure weight loss daily by 

retaring the balance using the reference 

tank and weighing the sealed test tank. 

Calculate the cumulative weight loss in 

grams for each measurement. Calculate 

the coefficient of determination, r2, 

based on a linear plot of cumulative 

weight loss vs. test days. Use the 

equation in 40 CFR 1065.602(k), with 

cumulative weight loss represented by 

yi and cumulative time represented by 

yref. The daily measurements must be at 

approximately the same time each day. 

You may omit up to two daily 

measurements in any seven-day period. 

Test for ten full days, then determine 

when to stop testing as follows: 

(i) You may stop testing after the 

measurement on the tenth day if r2 is at 

or above 0.95 or if the measured value 

is less than 50 percent of the applicable 

standard. (Note that if a Family 

Emission Limit applies for the family, it 

is considered to be the applicable 

standard for that family.) This means 

that if you stop testing with an r2 below 

0.95, you may not use the data to show 

compliance with a Family Emission 

Limit less than twice the measured 

value. 

(ii) If after ten days of testing your r2

value is below 0.95 and your measured 

value is more than 50 percent of the 

applicable standard, continue testing for 

a total of 20 days or until r2 is at or 

above 0.95. If r2 is not at or above 0.95 

within 20 days of testing, discontinue 

the test and precondition the fuel tank 

further until it has stabilized emission 

levels, then repeat the testing. 

* * * * * 

(10) Determine your final emission 

result based on the cumulative weight 

loss measured on the final day of 

testing. Round this result to the same 

number of decimal places as the 

emission standard. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

252. Section 1060.601 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1060.601 How do the prohibitions of 40 

CFR 1068.101 apply with respect to the 

requirements of this part? 

* * * * * 

(h) If equipment manufacturers hold 

certificates of conformity for their 

equipment but they use only fuelsystem components that have been 

certified by other companies, they may 

satisfy their defect-reporting obligations 

by tracking the information described in 

40 CFR 1068.501(b)(1) related to 

possible defects, reporting this 

information to the appropriate 

component manufacturers, and keeping 

these records for eight years. Such 

equipment manufacturers will not be 

considered in violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(b)(6) for failing to perform 

investigations, make calculations, or 

submit reports to EPA as specified in 40 

CFR 1068.501. See § 1060.5(a). 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

253. Section 1060.801 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Detachable 

fuel line’’ and ‘‘Sealed’’ and adding 

definitions for ‘‘Installed marine fuel 

line’’ and ‘‘Portable marine fuel line’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 1060.801 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

Detachable fuel line means a fuel line 

or fuel line assembly intended to be 

used with a portable nonroad fuel tank 

and which is connected by special 

fittings to the fuel tank and/or engine for 

easy disassembly. Fuel lines that require 

a wrench or other tools to disconnect 

are not considered detachable fuel lines. 

Fuel lines that are labeled or marketed 

as USCG Type B1 fuel line as specified 

in 33 CFR 183.540 are not considered 

detachable fuel lines if they are sold to 

the ultimate purchaser without quickconnect fittings or similar hardware. 

* * * * * 

Installed marine fuel line means a fuel 

line designed for delivering fuel to a 

Marine SI engine, excluding portable 

marine fuel line. 

* * * * * 

Portable marine fuel line means a 

detachable fuel line that is used or 

intended to be used to supply fuel to a 

marine engine during operation. This 

also includes any fuel line labeled or 

marketed at USCG Type B1 fuel line as 

specified in 33 CFR 183.540, whether or 

not it includes detachable connecting 

hardware; this is often called universal 

fuel line. 

* * * * * 

Sealed means lacking openings to the 

atmosphere that would allow a 

measurable amount of liquid or vapor to 

leak out under normal operating 

pressures or other pressures specified in 

this part. For example, you may 

generally establish a maximum value for 

operating pressures based on the highest 

pressure you would observe from an 

installed fuel tank during continuous 

equipment operation on a sunny day 

with ambient temperatures of 35°C. A 

fuel system may be considered to have 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44569 

no measurable leak if it does not release 

bubbles when held underwater at the 

identified pressure for 60 seconds. This 

determination presumes the use of good 

engineering judgment; for example, it 

would not be appropriate to test the fuel 

tank such that small leaks would avoid 

detection by collecting in a cavity 

created by holding the tank with a 

certain orientation. Sealed fuel systems 

may have openings for emission 

controls or for fuel lines needed to route 

fuel to the engine. 

* * * * * 

PART 1065—ENGINE–TESTING 

PROCEDURES 

254. The authority citation for part 

1065 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A— [Revised] 

255. Section 1065.1 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) Paragraph (a) of this section 

identifies the parts of the CFR that 

define emission standards and other 

requirements for particular types of 

engines. In this part, we refer to each of 

these other parts generically as the 

‘‘standard-setting part.’’ For example, 40 

CFR part 1051 is always the standardsetting part for snowmobiles. Note that 

while 40 CFR part 86 is the standardsetting part for heavy-duty highway 

engines, this refers specifically to 40 

CFR part 86, subpart A, and to certain 

portions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, 

as described in 40 CFR 86.1301. 

* * * * * 

256. Section 1065.2 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.2 Submitting information to EPA 

under this part. 

(a) You are responsible for statements 

and information in your applications for 

certification, requests for approved 

procedures, selective enforcement 

audits, laboratory audits, productionline test reports, field test reports, or any 

other statements you make to us related 

to this part 1065. If you provide 

statements or information to someone 

for submission to EPA, you are 

responsible for these statements and 

information as if you had submitted 

them to EPA yourself. 

(b) In the standard-setting part and in 

40 CFR 1068.101, we describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. See also 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 

42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation 

applies whether you submit this 

information directly to EPA or through 

someone else. 

* * * * * 

257. Section 1065.10 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.10 Other procedures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) You may request to use special 

procedures if your engine cannot be 

tested using the specified procedures. 

For example, this may apply if your 

engine cannot operate on the specified 

duty cycle. In this case, tell us in 

writing why you cannot satisfactorily 

test your engine using this part’s 

procedures and ask to use a different 

approach. We will approve your request 

if we determine that it would produce 

emission measurements that represent 

in-use operation and we determine that 

it can be used to show compliance with 

the requirements of the standard-setting 

part. Where we approve special 

procedures that differ substantially from 

the specified procedures, we may 

preclude you from participating in 

averaging, banking, and trading with the 

affected engine families. 

* * * * * 

(7) You may request to use alternate 

procedures that are equivalent to the 

allowed procedures, or procedures that 

are more accurate or more precise than 

the allowed procedures. The following 

provisions apply to requests for 

alternate procedures: 

(i) Applications. Follow the 

instructions in § 1065.12. 

(ii) Submission. Submit requests in 

writing to the Designated Compliance 

Officer. 

(iii) Notification. We may approve 

your request by telling you directly, or 

we may issue guidance announcing our 

approval of a specific alternate 

procedure, which would make 

additional requests for approval 

unnecessary. 

* * * * * 

258. Section 1065.15 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.15 Overview of procedures for 

laboratory and field testing. 

* * * * * 

(c) We generally set brake-specific 

emission standards over test intervals 

and/or duty cycles, as follows: 

(1) Engine operation. Testing may 

involve measuring emissions and work 

in a laboratory-type environment or in 

the field, as described in paragraph (f) 

of this section. For most laboratory 

testing, the engine is operated over one 

or more duty cycles specified in the 

standard-setting part. However, 

laboratory testing may also include nonduty cycle testing (such as simulation of 

field testing in a laboratory). For field 

testing, the engine is operated under 

normal in-use operation. The standardsetting part specifies how test intervals 

are defined for field testing. Refer to the 

definitions of ‘‘duty cycle’’ and ‘‘test 

interval’’ in § 1065.1001. Note that a 

single duty cycle may have multiple test 

intervals and require weighting of 

results from multiple test intervals to 

calculate a composite brake-specific 

emissions value to compare to the 

standard. 

(2) Constituent determination. 

Determine the total mass of each 

constituent over a test interval by 

selecting from the following methods: 

(i) Continuous sampling. In 

continuous sampling, measure the 

constituent’s concentration 

continuously from raw or dilute 

exhaust. Multiply this concentration by 

the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate 

at the emission sampling location to 

determine the constituent’s flow rate. 

Sum the constituent’s flow rate 

continuously over the test interval. This 

sum is the total mass of the emitted 

constituent. 

(ii) Batch sampling. In batch 

sampling, continuously extract and 

store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust 

for later measurement. Extract a sample 

proportional to the raw or dilute 

exhaust flow rate. You may extract and 

store a proportional sample of exhaust 

in an appropriate container, such as a 

bag, and then measure HC, CO, and NOX

concentrations in the container after the 

test interval. You may deposit PM from 

proportionally extracted exhaust onto 

an appropriate substrate, such as a filter. 

In this case, divide the PM by the 

amount of filtered exhaust to calculate 

the PM concentration. Multiply batch 

sampled concentrations by the total 

(raw or dilute) flow from which it was 

extracted during the test interval. This 

product is the total mass of the emitted 

constituent. 

(iii) Combined sampling. You may use 

continuous and batch sampling 

simultaneously during a test interval, as 

follows: 

(A) You may use continuous sampling 

for some constituents and batch 

sampling for others. 

(B) You may use continuous and 

batch sampling for a single constituent, 

with one being a redundant 

measurement. See § 1065.201 for more 

information on redundant 

measurements. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44570 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Work determination. Determine 

work over a test interval by one of the 

following methods: 

(i) Speed and torque. Synchronously 

multiply speed and brake torque to 

calculate instantaneous values for 

engine brake power. Sum engine brake 

power over a test interval to determine 

total work. 

(ii) Fuel consumed and brake-specific 

fuel consumption. Directly measure fuel 

consumed or calculate it with chemical 

balances of the fuel, intake air, and 

exhaust. To calculate fuel consumed by 

a chemical balance, you must also 

measure either intake-air flow rate or 

exhaust flow rate. Divide the fuel 

consumed during a test interval by the 

brake-specific fuel consumption to 

determine work over the test interval. 

For laboratory testing, calculate the 

brake-specific fuel consumption using 

fuel consumed and speed and torque 

over a test interval. For field testing, 

refer to the standard-setting part and 

§ 1065.915 for selecting an appropriate 

value for brake-specific fuel 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

Subpart B— [Revised] 

259. Section 1065.125 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.125 Engine intake air. 

* * * * * 

(c) Maintain the temperature of intake 

air upstream of all engine components 

within the range of allowable ambient 

temperatures (or other range specified 

by the standard-setting part), consistent 

with the provisions of § 1065.10(c)(1). 

* * * * * 

(e) This paragraph (e) includes 

provisions for simulating charge-air 

cooling in the laboratory. This approach 

is described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section. Limits on using this approach 

are described in paragraphs (e)(2) and 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Use a charge-air cooling system 

with a total intake-air capacity that 

represents production engines’ in-use 

installation. Design any laboratory 

charge-air cooling system to minimize 

accumulation of condensate. Drain any 

accumulated condensate and 

completely close all drains before 

starting a duty cycle. Keep the drains 

closed during the emission test. 

Maintain coolant conditions as follows: 

(i) Maintain a coolant temperature of 

at least 20 °C at the inlet to the chargeair cooler throughout testing. We 

recommend maintaining a coolant 

temperature of 25 ± 5 °C at the inlet of 

the charge-air cooler. 

(ii) At the engine conditions specified 

by the manufacturer, set the coolant 

flow rate to achieve an air temperature 

within ±5 °C of the value specified by 

the manufacturer after the charge-air 

cooler’s outlet. Measure the air-outlet 

temperature at the location specified by 

the manufacturer. Use this coolant flow 

rate set point throughout testing. If the 

engine manufacturer does not specify 

engine conditions or the corresponding 

charge-air cooler air outlet temperature, 

set the coolant flow rate at maximum 

engine power to achieve a charge-air 

cooler air outlet temperature that 

represents in-use operation. 

(iii) If the engine manufacturer 

specifies pressure-drop limits across the 

charge-air cooling system, ensure that 

the pressure drop across the charge-air 

cooling system at engine conditions 

specified by the manufacturer is within 

the manufacturer’s specified limit(s). 

Measure the pressure drop at the 

manufacturer’s specified locations. 

(2) Using a constant flow rate as 

described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section may result in unrepresentative 

overcooling of the intake air. The 

provisions of this paragraph (e)(2) apply 

instead of the provisions of 

§ 1065.10(c)(1) for this simulation. Our 

allowance to cool intake air as specified 

in this paragraph (e) does not affect your 

liability for field testing or for laboratory 

testing that is done in a way that better 

represents in-use operation. Where we 

determine that this allowance adversely 

affects your ability to demonstrate that 

your engines would comply with 

emission standards under in-use 

conditions, we may require you to use 

more sophisticated setpoints and 

controls of charge-air pressure drop, 

coolant temperature, and flow rate to 

achieve more representative results. 

(3) This approach does not apply for 

field testing. You may not correct 

measured emission levels from field 

testing to account for any differences 

caused by the simulated cooling in the 

laboratory. 

260. Section 1065.140 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(6), (e) 

introductory text, and (e)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM 

constituents. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) Aqueous condensation. To ensure 

that you measure a flow that 

corresponds to a measured 

concentration, you may either prevent 

aqueous condensation throughout the 

dilution tunnel or you may allow 

aqueous condensation to occur and then 

measure humidity at the flow meter 

inlet. You may heat or insulate the 

dilution tunnel walls, as well as the 

bulk stream tubing downstream of the 

tunnel to prevent aqueous 

condensation. Calculations in 

§ 1065.645 and § 1065.650 account for 

either method of addressing humidity in 

the diluted exhaust. Note that 

preventing aqueous condensation 

involves more than keeping pure water 

in a vapor phase (see § 1065.1001). 

* * * * * 

(e) Dilution air temperature, dilution 

ratio, residence time, and temperature 

control of PM samples. Dilute PM 

samples at least once upstream of 

transfer lines. You may dilute PM 

samples upstream of a transfer line 

using full-flow dilution, or partial-flow 

dilution immediately downstream of a 

PM probe. In the case of partial-flow 

dilution, you may have up to 26 cm of 

insulated length between the end of the 

probe and the dilution stage, but we 

recommend that the length be as short 

as practical. The intent of these 

specifications is to minimize heat 

transfer to or from the emission sample 

before the final stage of dilution, other 

than the heat you may need to add to 

prevent aqueous condensation. This is 

accomplished by initially cooling the 

sample through dilution. Configure 

dilution systems as follows: 

* * * * * 

(4) Control sample temperature to a 

(47 ±5) °C tolerance, as measured 

anywhere within 20 cm upstream or 

downstream of the PM storage media 

(such as a filter). Measure this 

temperature with a bare-wire junction 

thermocouple with wires that are (0.500 

±0.025) mm diameter, or with another 

suitable instrument that has equivalent 

performance. 

261. Section 1065.145 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.145 Gaseous and PM probes, 

transfer lines, and sampling system 

components. 

(a) Continuous and batch sampling. 

Determine the total mass of each 

constituent with continuous or batch 

sampling, as described in 

§ 1065.15(c)(2). Both types of sampling 

systems have probes, transfer lines, and 

other sampling system components that 

are described in this section. 

(b) Options for engines with multiple 

exhaust stacks. Measure emissions from 

a test engine as described in this 

paragraph (b) if it has multiple exhaust 

stacks. You may choose to use different 

measurement procedures for different 

pollutants under this paragraph (b) for 

a given test. For purposes of this part 

1065, the test engine includes all the 

devices related to converting the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44571 

chemical energy in the fuel to the 

engine’s mechanical output energy. This 

may or may not involve vehicle- or 

equipment-based devices. For example, 

all of an engine’s cylinders are 

considered to be part of the test engine 

even if the exhaust is divided into 

separate exhaust stacks. As another 

example, all the cylinders of a dieselelectric locomotive are considered to be 

part of the test engine even if they 

transmit power through separate output 

shafts, such as might occur with 

multiple engine-generator sets working 

in tandem. Use one of the following 

procedures to measure emissions with 

multiple exhaust stacks: 

(1) Route the exhaust flow from the 

multiple stacks into a single flow as 

described in § 1065.130(c)(6). Sample 

and measure emissions after the exhaust 

streams are mixed. Calculate the 

emissions as a single sample from the 

entire engine. We recommend this as 

the preferred option, since it requires 

only a single measurement and 

calculation of the exhaust molar flow for 

the entire engine. 

(2) Sample and measure emissions 

from each stack and calculate emissions 

separately for each stack. Add the mass 

(or mass rate) emissions from each stack 

to calculate the emissions from the 

entire engine. Testing under this 

paragraph (b)(2) requires measuring or 

calculating the exhaust molar flow for 

each stack separately. If the exhaust 

molar flow in each stack cannot be 

calculated from combustion air flow(s), 

fuel flow(s), and measured gaseous 

emissions, and it is impractical to 

measure the exhaust molar flows 

directly, you may alternatively 

proportion the engine’s calculated total 

exhaust molar flow rate (where the flow 

is calculated using combustion air mass 

flow(s), fuel mass flow(s), and emissions 

concentrations) based on exhaust molar 

flow measurements in each stack using 

a less accurate, non-traceable method. 

For example, you may use a total 

pressure probe and static pressure 

measurement in each stack. 

(3) Sample and measure emissions 

from one stack and repeat the duty cycle 

as needed to collect emissions from 

each stack separately. Calculate the 

emissions from each stack and add the 

separate measurements to calculate the 

mass (or mass rate) emissions from the 

entire engine. Testing under this 

paragraph (b)(3) requires measuring or 

calculating the exhaust molar flow for 

each stack separately. You may 

alternatively proportion the engine’s 

calculated total exhaust molar flow rate 

based on calculation and measurement 

limitations as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. Use the average of 

the engine’s total power or work values 

from the multiple test runs to calculate 

brake-specific emissions. Divide the 

total mass (or mass rate) of each 

emission by the average power (or 

work). You may alternatively use the 

engine power or work associated with 

the corresponding stack during each test 

run if these values can be determined 

for each stack separately. 

(4) Sample and measure emissions 

from each stack separately and calculate 

emissions for the entire engine based on 

the stack with the highest concentration. 

Testing under this paragraph (b)(4) 

requires only a single exhaust flow 

measurement or calculation for the 

entire engine. You may determine 

which stack has the highest 

concentration by performing multiple 

test runs, reviewing the results of earlier 

tests, or using good engineering 

judgment. Note that the highest 

concentration of different pollutants 

may occur in different stacks. Note also 

that the stack with the highest 

concentration of a pollutant during a 

test interval for field testing may be a 

different stack than the one you 

identified based on average 

concentrations over a duty cycle. 

(5) Sample emissions from each stack 

separately and combine the wet sample 

streams from each stack proportionally 

to the exhaust molar flows in each stack. 

Measure the emission concentrations 

and calculate the emissions for the 

entire engine based on these weighted 

concentrations. Testing under this 

paragraph (b)(5) requires measuring or 

calculating the exhaust molar flow for 

each stack separately during the test run 

to proportion the sample streams from 

each stack. If it is impractical to 

measure the exhaust molar flows 

directly, you may alternatively 

proportion the wet sample streams 

based on less accurate, non-traceable 

flow methods. For example, you may 

use a total pressure probe and static 

pressure measurement in each stack. 

The following restrictions apply for 

testing under this paragraph (b)(5): 

(i) You must use an accurate, 

traceable measurement or calculation of 

the engine’s total exhaust molar flow 

rate for calculating the mass of 

emissions from the entire engine. 

(ii) You may dry the single, combined, 

proportional sample stream; you may 

not dry the sample streams from each 

stack separately. 

(iii) You must measure and 

proportion the sample flows from each 

stack with active flow controls. For PM 

sampling, you must measure and 

proportion the diluted sample flows 

from each stack with active flow 

controls that use only smooth walls 

with no sudden change in crosssectional area. For example, you may 

control the dilute exhaust PM sample 

flows using electrically conductive 

vinyl tubing and a control device that 

pinches the tube over a long enough 

transition length so no flow separation 

occurs. 

(iv) For PM sampling, the transfer 

lines from each stack must be joined so 

the angle of the joining flows is 12.5° or 

less. Note that the exhaust manifold 

must meet the same specifications as the 

transfer line according to paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(6) Sample emissions from each stack 

separately and combine the wet sample 

streams from each stack equally. 

Measure the emission concentrations 

and calculate the emissions for the 

entire engine based on these measured 

concentrations. Testing under this 

paragraph (b)(6) assumes that the rawexhaust and sample flows are the same 

for each stack. The following 

restrictions apply for testing under this 

paragraph (b)(6): 

(i) You must measure and 

demonstrate that the sample flow from 

each stack is within 5% of the value 

from the stack with the highest sample 

flow. You may alternatively ensure that 

the stacks have equal flow rates without 

measuring sample flows by designing a 

passive sampling system that meets the 

following requirements: 

(A) The probes and transfer line 

branches must be symmetrical, have 

equal lengths and diameters, have the 

same number of bends, and have no 

filters. 

(B) If probes are designed such that 

they are sensitive to stack velocity, the 

stack velocity must be similar at each 

probe. For example, a static pressure 

probe used for gaseous sampling is not 

sensitive to stack velocity. 

(C) The stack static pressure must be 

the same at each probe. You can meet 

this requirement by placing probes at 

the end of stacks that are vented to 

atmosphere. 

(D) For PM sampling, the transfer 

lines from each stack must be joined so 

the angle of the joining flows is 12.5° or 

less. Note that the exhaust manifold 

must meet the same specifications as the 

transfer line according to paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(ii) You may use the procedure in this 

paragraph (b)(6) only if you perform an 

analysis showing that the resulting error 

due to imbalanced stack flows and 

concentrations is either at or below 2%. 

You may alternatively show that the 

resulting error does not impact your 

ability to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable standards. For example, you 

may use less accurate, non-traceable 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

measurements of emission 

concentrations and molar flow in each 

stack and demonstrate that the 

imbalances in flows and concentrations 

cause 2% or less error. 

(iii) For a two-stack engine, you may 

use the procedure in this paragraph 

(b)(6) only if you can show that the 

stack with the higher flow has the lower 

average concentration for each pollutant 

over the duty cycle. 

(iv) You must use an accurate, 

traceable measurement or calculation of 

the engine’s total exhaust molar flow 

rate for calculating the mass of 

emissions from the entire engine. 

(v) You may dry the single, equally 

combined, sample stream; you may not 

dry the sample streams from each stack 

separately. 

(vi) You may determine your exhaust 

flow rates with a chemical balance of 

exhaust gas concentrations and either 

intake air flow or fuel flow. 

(c) Gaseous and PM sample probes. A 

probe is the first fitting in a sampling 

system. It protrudes into a raw or 

diluted exhaust stream to extract a 

sample, such that its inside and outside 

surfaces are in contact with the exhaust. 

A sample is transported out of a probe 

into a transfer line, as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section. The 

following provisions apply to sample 

probes: 

(1) Probe design and construction. 

Use sample probes with inside surfaces 

of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw 

exhaust sampling, use any nonreactive 

material capable of withstanding raw 

exhaust temperatures. Locate sample 

probes where constituents are mixed to 

their mean sample concentration. Take 

into account the mixing of any 

crankcase emissions that may be routed 

into the raw exhaust. Locate each probe 

to minimize interference with the flow 

to other probes. We recommend that all 

probes remain free from influences of 

boundary layers, wakes, and eddies— 

especially near the outlet of a rawexhaust tailpipe where unintended 

dilution might occur. Make sure that 

purging or back-flushing of a probe does 

not influence another probe during 

testing. You may use a single probe to 

extract a sample of more than one 

constituent as long as the probe meets 

all the specifications for each 

constituent. 

(2) Gaseous sample probes. Use either 

single-port or multi-port probes for 

sampling gaseous emissions. You may 

orient these probes in any direction 

relative to the raw or diluted exhaust 

flow. For some probes, you must control 

sample temperatures, as follows: 

(i) For probes that extract NOx from 

diluted exhaust, control the probe’s wall 

temperature to prevent aqueous 

condensation. 

(ii) For probes that extract 

hydrocarbons for THC or NMHC 

analysis from the diluted exhaust of 

compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke 

spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke 

spark-ignition engines below 19 kW, we 

recommend heating the probe to 

minimize hydrocarbon contamination 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. If you routinely fail the 

contamination check in the 1065.520 

pretest check, we recommend heating 

the probe section to approximately 190 

°C to minimize contamination. 

(3) PM sample probes. Use PM probes 

with a single opening at the end. Orient 

PM probes to face directly upstream. If 

you shield a PM probe’s opening with 

a PM pre-classifier such as a hat, you 

may not use the preclassifier we specify 

in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. We 

recommend sizing the inside diameter 

of PM probes to approximate isokinetic 

sampling at the expected mean flow 

rate. 

(d) Transfer lines. You may use 

transfer lines to transport an extracted 

sample from a probe to an analyzer, 

storage medium, or dilution system, 

noting certain restrictions for PM 

sampling in § 1065.140(e). Minimize the 

length of all transfer lines by locating 

analyzers, storage media, and dilution 

systems as close to probes as practical. 

We recommend that you minimize the 

number of bends in transfer lines and 

that you maximize the radius of any 

unavoidable bend. Avoid using 90 

°elbows, tees, and cross-fittings in 

transfer lines. Where such connections 

and fittings are necessary, take steps, 

using good engineering judgment, to 

ensure that you meet the temperature 

tolerances in this paragraph (d). This 

may involve measuring temperature at 

various locations within transfer lines 

and fittings. You may use a single 

transfer line to transport a sample of 

more than one constituent, as long as 

the transfer line meets all the 

specifications for each constituent. The 

following construction and temperature 

tolerances apply to transfer lines: 

(1) Gaseous samples. Use transfer 

lines with inside surfaces of 300 series 

stainless steel, PTFE, VitonTM, or any 

other material that you demonstrate has 

better properties for emission sampling. 

For raw exhaust sampling, use a nonreactive material capable of 

withstanding raw exhaust temperatures. 

You may use in-line filters if they do not 

react with exhaust constituents and if 

the filter and its housing meet the same 

temperature requirements as the transfer 

lines, as follows: 

(i) For NOX transfer lines upstream of 

either an NO2-to-NO converter that 

meets the specifications of § 1065.378 or 

a chiller that meets the specifications of 

§ 1065.376, maintain a sample 

temperature that prevents aqueous 

condensation. 

(ii) For THC transfer lines for testing 

compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke 

spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke 

spark-ignition engines below 19 kW, 

maintain a wall temperature tolerance 

throughout the entire line of (191 ± 11) 

°C. If you sample from raw exhaust, you 

may connect an unheated, insulated 

transfer line directly to a probe. Design 

the length and insulation of the transfer 

line to cool the highest expected raw 

exhaust temperature to no lower than 

191 °C, as measured at the transfer line’s 

outlet. For dilute sampling, you may use 

a transition zone between the probe and 

transfer line of up to 92 cm to allow 

your wall temperature to transition to 

(191 ± 11) °C. 

(2) PM samples. We recommend 

heated transfer lines or a heated 

enclosure to minimize temperature 

differences between transfer lines and 

exhaust constituents. Use transfer lines 

that are inert with respect to PM and are 

electrically conductive on the inside 

surfaces. We recommend using PM 

transfer lines made of 300 series 

stainless steel. Electrically ground the 

inside surface of PM transfer lines. 

(e) Optional sample-conditioning 

components for gaseous sampling. You 

may use the following sampleconditioning components to prepare 

gaseous samples for analysis, as long as 

you do not install or use them in a way 

that adversely affects your ability to 

show that your engines comply with all 

applicable gaseous emission standards. 

(1) NO2-to-NO converter. You may use 

an NO2-to-NO converter that meets the 

efficiency-performance check specified 

in § 1065.378 at any point upstream of 

a NOx analyzer, sample bag, or other 

storage medium. 

(2) Sample dryer. You may use either 

type of sample dryer described in this 

paragraph (e)(2) to decrease the effects 

of water on gaseous emission 

measurements. You may not use a 

chemical dryer, or use dryers upstream 

of PM sample filters. 

(i) Osmotic-membrane. You may use 

an osmotic-membrane dryer upstream of 

any gaseous analyzer or storage 

medium, as long as it meets the 

temperature specifications in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. Because osmoticmembrane dryers may deteriorate after 

prolonged exposure to certain exhaust 

constituents, consult with the 

membrane manufacturer regarding your 

application before incorporating an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44573 

osmotic-membrane dryer. Monitor the 

dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, 

ptotal, downstream of an osmoticmembrane dryer. You may use 

continuously recorded values of Tdew

and ptotal in the amount of water 

calculations specified in § 1065.645. If 

you do not continuously record these 

values, you may use their peak values 

observed during a test or their alarm 

setpoints as constant values in the 

calculations specified in § 1065.645. 

You may also use a nominal ptotal, which 

you may estimate as the dryer’s lowest 

absolute pressure expected during 

testing. 

(ii) Thermal chiller. You may use a 

thermal chiller upstream of some gas 

analyzers and storage media. You may 

not use a thermal chiller upstream of a 

THC measurement system for 

compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke 

spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke 

spark-ignition engines below 19 kW. If 

you use a thermal chiller upstream of an 

NO2-to-NO converter or in a sampling 

system without an NO2-to-NO converter, 

the chiller must meet the NO2 lossperformance check specified in 

§ 1065.376. Monitor the dewpoint, Tdew,

and absolute pressure, ptotal, downstream 

of a thermal chiller. You may use 

continuously recorded values of Tdew

and ptotal in the emission calculations 

specified in § 1065.650. If you do not 

continuously record these values, you 

may use the maximum temperature and 

minimum pressure values observed 

during a test or the high alarm 

temperature setpoint and the low alarm 

pressure setpoint as constant values in 

the amount of water calculations 

specified in § 1065.645. You may also 

use a nominal ptotal, which you may 

estimate as the dryer’s lowest absolute 

pressure expected during testing. If it is 

valid to assume the degree of saturation 

in the thermal chiller, you may calculate 

Tdew based on the known chiller 

performance and continuous monitoring 

of chiller temperature, Tchiller. If you do 

not continuously record values of Tchiller,

you may use its peak value observed 

during a test, or its alarm setpoint, as a 

constant value to determine a constant 

amount of water according to 

§ 1065.645. If it is valid to assume that 

Tchiller is equal to Tdew, you may use 

Tchiller in lieu of Tdew according to 

§ 1065.645. If it is valid to assume a 

constant temperature offset between 

Tchiller and Tdew, due to a known and 

fixed amount of sample reheat between 

the chiller outlet and the temperature 

measurement location, you may factor 

in this assumed temperature offset value 

into emission calculations. If we ask for 

it, you must show by engineering 

analysis or by data the validity of any 

assumptions allowed by this paragraph 

(e)(2)(ii). 

(3) Sample pumps. You may use 

sample pumps upstream of an analyzer 

or storage medium for any gas. Use 

sample pumps with inside surfaces of 

300 series stainless steel, PTFE, or any 

other material that you demonstrate has 

better properties for emission sampling. 

For some sample pumps, you must 

control temperatures, as follows: 

(i) If you use a NOx sample pump 

upstream of either an NO2-to-NO 

converter that meets § 1065.378 or a 

chiller that meets § 1065.376, it must be 

heated to prevent aqueous 

condensation. 

(ii) For testing compression-ignition 

engines, 2-stroke spark-ignition engines, 

or 4-stroke spark-ignition engines below 

19 kW, if you use a THC sample pump 

upstream of a THC analyzer or storage 

medium, its inner surfaces must be 

heated to a tolerance of (191 ±11) °C. 

(4) Ammonia Scrubber. You may use 

ammonia scrubbers for any or all 

gaseous sampling systems to prevent 

interference with NH3, poisoning of the 

NO2-to-NO converter, and deposits in 

the sampling system or analyzers. 

Follow the ammonia scrubber 

manufacturer’s recommendations or use 

good engineering judgment in applying 

ammonia scrubbers. 

(f) Optional sample-conditioning 

components for PM sampling. You may 

use the following sample-conditioning 

components to prepare PM samples for 

analysis, as long as you do not install or 

use them in a way that adversely affects 

your ability to show that your engines 

comply with the applicable PM 

emission standards. You may condition 

PM samples to minimize positive and 

negative biases to PM results, as follows: 

(1) PM preclassifier. You may use a 

PM preclassifier to remove largediameter particles. The PM preclassifier 

may be either an inertial impactor or a 

cyclonic separator. It must be 

constructed of 300 series stainless steel. 

The preclassifier must be rated to 

remove at least 50% of PM at an 

aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm and no 

more than 1% of PM at an aerodynamic 

diameter of 1 μm over the range of flow 

rates for which you use it. Follow the 

preclassifier manufacturer’s instructions 

for any periodic servicing that may be 

necessary to prevent a buildup of PM. 

Install the preclassifier in the dilution 

system downstream of the last dilution 

stage. Configure the preclassifier outlet 

with a means of bypassing any PM 

sample media so the preclassifier flow 

may be stabilized before starting a test. 

Locate PM sample media within 75 cm 

downstream of the preclassifier’s exit. 

You may not use this preclassifier if you 

use a PM probe that already has a 

preclassifier. For example, if you use a 

hat-shaped preclassifier that is located 

immediately upstream of the probe in 

such a way that it forces the sample 

flow to change direction before entering 

the probe, you may not use any other 

preclassifier in your PM sampling 

system. 

(2) Other components. You may 

request to use other PM conditioning 

components upstream of a PM 

preclassifier, such as components that 

condition humidity or remove gaseousphase hydrocarbons from the diluted 

exhaust stream. You may use such 

components only if we approve them 

under § 1065.10. 

Subpart C— [Revised] 

262. Section 1065.240 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.240 Dilution air and diluted exhaust 

flow meters. 

* * * * * 

(d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool 

diluted exhaust upstream of a diluteexhaust flow meter, as long as you 

observe all the following provisions: 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Revised] 

263. Section 1065.303 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.303 Summary of required 

calibration and verifications 

The following table summarizes the 

required and recommended calibrations 

and verifications described in this 

subpart and indicates when these have 

to be performed: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303–SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS

Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency a

§ 1065.305: Accuracy, repeatability and noise ......................................... Accuracy: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. 

Repeatability: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. 

Noise: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44574 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303–SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS—Continued 

Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency a

§ 1065.307: Linearity verification .............................................................. Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after 

major maintenance. 

Torque: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and 

after major maintenance. 

Electrical power: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing 

and after major maintenance. 

Fuel flow: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and 

after major maintenance. 

Clean gas and diluted exhaust flows: Upon initial installation, within 

370 days before testing and after major maintenance, unless flow is 

verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance. 

Raw exhaust flow: Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing and after major maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane 

check or by carbon or oxygen balance. 

Gas dividers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, 

and after major maintenance. 

Gas analyzers: Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing 

and after major maintenance. 

PM balance: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and 

after major maintenance. 

Stand-alone pressure, temperature, and dewpoint: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.308: Continuous gas analyzer system response and updatingrecording verification—for gas analyzers not continuously compensated for other gas species.Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. 

§ 1065.309: Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updatingrecording verification—for gas analyzers continuously compensated 

for other gas species.

Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. 

§ 1065.310: Torque ................................................................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.315: Pressure, temperature, dewpoint ......................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.320: Fuel flow ............................................................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.325: Intake flow ............................................................................. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.330: Exhaust flow ......................................................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) .................................................. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.341: CVS and batch sampler verification.b Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major 

maintenance. 

§ 1065.342 Sample dryer verification ....................................................... For thermal chillers; upon installation and after major maintenance. 

For osmotic membranes; upon installation, after major maintenance, 

and within 35 days of testing. 

§ 1065.345: Vacuum leak ......................................................................... Before each laboratory test according to subpart F of this part and before each field test according to subpart J of this part. 

§ 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O interference ................................................. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and H2O interference ................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.360: FID calibration THC FID optimization, and THC FID 

verification.

Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon initial installation and after major 

maintenance. 

Optimize and determine CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon 

initial installation and after major maintenance. 

Verify CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, 

within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O2 interference ........................................ For all FID analyzers: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

For THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation after major maintenance, and after FID optimization according to § 1065.360. 

§ 1065.365: Nonmethane cutter penetration ............................................ Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major 

maintenance. 

§ 1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O quench ................................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O interference .......................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.376: Chiller NO2 penetration ......................................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.378: NO2-to-NO converter conversion .......................................... Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major 

maintenance. 

§ 1065.390: PM balance and weighing .................................................... Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before 

testing, and after major maintenance. 

Zero, span, and reference sample verifications: within 12 hours of 

weighing and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing ........................................ Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before 

testing, and after major maintenance. 

Other verifications: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering 

judgment. bThe CVS verification described in § 1065.341 is not required for systems that agree within ± 2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or 

oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted exhaust. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44575 

264. Section 1065.307 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(6), (d), and 

(e)(3)(ii) and Table 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.307 Linearity verification. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) For all measured quantities, use 

instrument manufacturer 

recommendations and good engineering 

judgment to select reference values, yrefi,

that cover a range of values that you 

expect would prevent extrapolation 

beyond these values during emission 

testing. We recommend selecting a zero 

reference signal as one of the reference 

values of the linearity verification. For 

stand-alone pressure, temperature, and 

dewpoint linearity verifications, we 

recommend at least three reference 

values. For all other linearity 

verifications select at least ten reference 

values. 

* * * * * 

(d) Reference signals. This paragraph 

(d) describes recommended methods for 

generating reference values for the 

linearity-verification protocol in 

paragraph (c) of this section. Use 

reference values that simulate actual 

values, or introduce an actual value and 

measure it with a referencemeasurement system. In the latter case, 

the reference value is the value reported 

by the reference-measurement system. 

Reference values and referencemeasurement systems must be NISTtraceable. We recommend using 

calibration reference quantities that are 

NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty, 

if not specified otherwise in other 

sections of this part 1065. Use the 

following recommended methods to 

generate reference values or use good 

engineering judgment to select a 

different reference: 

(1) Speed. Run the engine or 

dynamometer at a series of steady-state 

speeds and use a strobe, a photo 

tachometer, or a laser tachometer to 

record reference speeds. 

(2) Torque. Use a series of calibration 

weights and a calibration lever arm to 

simulate engine torque. You may 

instead use the engine or dynamometer 

itself to generate a nominal torque that 

is measured by a reference load cell or 

proving ring in series with the torquemeasurement system. In this case use 

the reference load cell measurement as 

the reference value. Refer to § 1065.310 

for a torque-calibration procedure 

similar to the linearity verification in 

this section. 

(3) Electrical power. Use a controlled 

source of current and a watt-hour 

standard reference meter. Complete 

calibration systems that contain a 

current source and a reference watt-hour 

meter are commonly used in the 

electrical power distribution industry 

and are therefore commercially 

available. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) For linearity verification of torque 

on the engine’s primary output shaft, 

Tmax refers to the manufacturer’s 

specified engine torque peak value of 

the lowest torque engine to be tested. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44576 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

265. Section 1065.309 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.309 Continuous gas analyzer 

system-response and updating-recording 

verification—for gas analyzers continuously 

compensated for other gas species. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Equipment setup. We recommend 

using minimal lengths of gas transfer 

lines between all connections and fastacting three-way valves (2 inlets, 1 

outlet) to control the flow of zero and 

blended span gases to the sample 

system’s probe inlet or a tee near the 

outlet of the probe. Normally the gas 

flow rate is higher than the probe 

sample flow rate and the excess is 

overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If 

the gas flow rate is lower than the probe 

flow rate, the gas concentrations must 

be adjusted to account for the dilution 

from ambient air drawn into the probe. 

Select span gases for the species being 

continuously combined, other than H2O. 

Select concentrations of compensating 

species that will yield concentrations of 

these species at the analyzer inlet that 

covers the range of concentrations 

expected during testing. You may use 

binary or multi-gas span gases. You may 

use a gas blending or mixing device to 

blend span gases. A gas blending or 

mixing device is recommended when 

blending span gases diluted in N2 with 

span gases diluted in air. You may use 

a multi-gas span gas, such as NO–CO– 

CO2–C3H8–CH4, to verify multiple 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44577 

analyzers at the same time. In designing 

your experimental setup, avoid pressure 

pulsations due to stopping the flow 

through the gas blending device. If H2O 

correction is applicable, then span gases 

must be humidified before entering the 

analyzer; however, you may not 

humidify NO2 span gas by passing it 

through a sealed humidification vessel 

that contains water. You must humidify 

NO2 span gas with another moist gas 

stream. We recommend humidifying 

your NO–CO–CO2–C3H8–CH4, balance 

N2 blended gas by flowing the gas 

mixture through a sealed vessel that 

humidifies the gas by bubbling it 

through distilled water and then mixing 

the gas with dry NO2 gas, balance 

purified synthetic air. If your system 

does not use a sample dryer to remove 

water from the sample gas, you must 

humidify your span gas to the highest 

sample H2O content that you estimate 

during emission sampling. If your 

system uses a sample dryer during 

testing, it must pass the sample dryer 

verification check in § 1065.342, and 

you must humidify your span gas to an 

H2O content greater than or equal to the 

level determined in § 1065.145(e)(2). If 

you are humidifying span gases without 

NO2, use good engineering judgment to 

ensure that the wall temperatures in the 

transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 

the humidifying system to the probe are 

above the dewpoint required for the 

target H2O content. If you are 

humidifying span gases with NO2, use 

good engineering judgment to ensure 

that there is no condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where humidified gas is mixed 

with NO2 span gas to the probe. We 

recommend that you design your setup 

so that the wall temperatures in the 

transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 

the humidifying system to the probe are 

at least 5 °C above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. Operate the measurement 

and sample handling system as you do 

for emission testing. Make no 

modifications to the sample handling 

system to reduce the risk of 

condensation. Flow humidified gas 

through the sampling system before this 

check to allow stabilization of the 

measurement system’s sampling 

handling system to occur, as it would 

for an emission test. 

* * * * * 

266. Section 1065.342 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a), (c), (d)(4), and 

(d)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.342 Sample dryer verification. 

(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a 

sample dryer as allowed in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2) to remove water from 

the sample gas, verify the performance 

upon installation, after major 

maintenance, for thermal chiller. For 

osmotic membrane dryers, verify the 

performance upon installation, after 

major maintenance, and within 35 days 

of testing. 

* * * * * 

(c) System requirements. The sample 

dryer must meet the specifications as 

determined in § 1065.145(e)(2) for 

dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, 

ptotal, downstream of the osmoticmembrane dryer or thermal chiller. 

(d) * * * 

(4) Maintain the sample lines, fittings, 

and valves from the location where the 

humidified gas water content is 

measured to the inlet of the sampling 

system at a temperature at least 5 °C 

above the local humidified gas 

dewpoint. For dryers used in NOX

sample systems, verify the sample 

system components used in this 

verification to prevent aqueous 

condensation as required in 

§ 1065.145(d)(1)(i). We recommend that 

the sample system components be 

maintained at least 5 °C above the local 

humidified gas dewpoint to prevent 

aqueous condensation. 

* * * * * 

(7) The sample dryer meets the 

verification if the dewpoint at the 

sample dryer pressure as measured in 

paragraph (d)(6) of this section is less 

than the dewpoint corresponding to the 

sample dryer specifications as 

determined in § 1065.145(e)(2) plus 2 °C 

or if the mole fraction of water as 

measured in (d)(6) is less than the 

corresponding sample dryer 

specifications plus 0.002 mol/mol. 

* * * * * 

267. Section 1065.345 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.345 Vacuum-side leak verification. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Close a leak-tight valve located in 

the sample transfer line within 92 cm of 

the probe. 

* * * * * 

268. Section 1065.350 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.350 H2O interference verification for 

CO2 NDIR analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Perform the 

interference verification as follows: 

(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the 

CO2 NDIR analyzer as you would before 

an emission test. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during emission testing, 

you may run this verification test with 

the dryer if it meets the requirements of 

§ 1065.342. Operate the dryer at the 

same conditions as you will for an 

emission test. You may also run this 

verification test without the sample 

dryer. 

(2) Create a humidified test gas by 

bubbling zero gas that meets the 

specifications in § 1065.750 through 

distilled water in a sealed vessel. If the 

sample is not passed through a dryer 

during emission testing, control the 

vessel temperature to generate an H2O 

level at least as high as the maximum 

expected during emission testing. If the 

sample is passed through a dryer during 

emission testing, control the vessel 

temperature to generate an H2O level at 

least as high as the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. 

(3) Introduce the humidified test gas 

into the sample system. You may 

introduce it downstream of any sample 

dryer, if one is used during testing. 

(4) If the sample is not passed through 

a dryer during this verification test, 

measure the water mole fraction, xH2O,

of the humidified test gas, as close as 

possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For 

example, measure dewpoint, Tdew, and 

absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 

xH2O. Verify that the water content meets 

the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during this verification 

test, you must verify that the water 

content of the humidified test gas 

downstream of the vessel meets the 

requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section based on either direct 

measurement of the water content (e.g., 

dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate 

based on the vessel pressure and 

temperature. Use good engineering 

judgment to estimate the water content. 

For example, you may use previous 

direct measurements of water content to 

verify the vessel’s level of saturation. 

(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this 

verification test, use good engineering 

judgment to prevent condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where xH2O is measured to the 

analyzer. We recommend that you 

design your system so the wall 

temperatures in the transfer lines, 

fittings, and valves from the point where 

xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 

least 5 °C above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. 

* * * * * 

269. Section 1065.355 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.355 H2O and CO2 interference 

verification for CO NDIR analyzers. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44578 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(d) Procedure. Perform the 

interference verification as follows: 

(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the 

CO NDIR analyzer as you would before 

an emission test. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during emission testing, 

you may run this verification test with 

the dryer if it meets the requirements of 

§ 1065.342. Operate the dryer at the 

same conditions as you will for an 

emission test. You may also run this 

verification test without the sample 

dryer. 

(2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas 

by bubbling a CO2 span gas that meets 

the specifications in § 1065.750 through 

distilled water in a sealed vessel. If the 

sample is not passed through a dryer 

during emission testing, control the 

vessel temperature to generate an H2O 

level at least as high as the maximum 

expected during emission testing. If the 

sample is passed through a dryer during 

emission testing, control the vessel 

temperature to generate an H2O level at 

least as high as the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use a 

CO2 span gas concentration at least as 

high as the maximum expected during 

testing. 

(3) Introduce the humidified CO2 test 

gas into the sample system. You may 

introduce it downstream of any sample 

dryer, if one is used during testing. 

(4) If the sample is not passed through 

a dryer during this verification test, 

measure the water mole fraction, xH2O,

of the humidified CO2 test gas as close 

as possible to the inlet of the analyzer. 

For example, measure dewpoint, Tdew,

and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 

xH2O. Verify that the water content meets 

the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during this verification 

test, you must verify that the water 

content of the humidified test gas 

downstream of the vessel meets the 

requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section based on either direct 

measurement of the water content (e.g., 

dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate 

based on the vessel pressure and 

temperature. Use good engineering 

judgment to estimate the water content. 

For example, you may use previous 

direct measurements of water content to 

verify the vessel’s level of saturation. 

(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this 

verification test, use good engineering 

judgment to prevent condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where xH2O is measured to the 

analyzer. We recommend that you 

design your system so that the wall 

temperatures in the transfer lines, 

fittings, and valves from the point where 

xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 

least 5 °C above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. 

* * * * * 

270. Section 1065.370 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench 

verification. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) Humidify the NO span gas by 

bubbling it through distilled water in a 

sealed vessel. If the humidified NO span 

gas sample does not pass through a 

sample dryer for this verification test, 

control the vessel temperature to 

generate an H2O level approximately 

equal to the maximum mole fraction of 

H2O expected during emission testing. If 

the humidified NO span gas sample 

does not pass through a sample dryer, 

the quench verification calculations in 

§ 1065.675 scale the measured H2O 

quench to the highest mole fraction of 

H2O expected during emission testing. If 

the humidified NO span gas sample 

passes through a dryer for this 

verification test, control the vessel 

temperature to generate an H2O level at 

least as high as the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2). For this case, the 

quench verification calculations in 

§ 1065.675 do not scale the measured 

H2O quench. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F— [Revised] 

271. Section 1065.501 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and 

(b)(2)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.501 Overview. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Discrete-mode cycles. Before 

emission sampling, stabilize an engine 

at the first discrete mode. Sample 

emissions and other parameters for that 

mode in the same manner as a transient 

cycle, with the exception that reference 

speed and torque values are constant. 

Record mean values for that mode, and 

then stabilize the engine at the next 

mode. Continue to sample each mode 

discretely as separate test intervals and 

calculate weighted emission results 

according to the standard-setting part. 

(ii) Ramped-modal cycles. Perform 

ramped-modal cycles similar to the way 

you would perform transient cycles, 

except that ramped-modal cycles 

involve mostly steady-state engine 

operation. Generate a ramped-modal 

duty cycle as a sequence of second-bysecond (1 Hz) reference speed and 

torque points. Run the ramped-modal 

duty cycle in the same manner as a 

transient cycle and use the 1 Hz 

reference speed and torque values to 

validate the cycle, even for cycles with 

% power. Proportionally sample 

emissions and other parameters during 

the cycle and use the calculations in 

subpart G of this part to calculate 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

272. Section 1065.510 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.510 Engine mapping. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Perform one of the following: 

(i) For any engine subject only to 

steady-state duty cycles (i.e., discretemode or ramped-modal), you may 

perform an engine map by using 

discrete speeds. Select at least 20 evenly 

spaced setpoints between warm idle 

speed and the endpoint. At each 

setpoint, stabilize speed and allow 

torque to stabilize. Record the mean 

speed and torque at each setpoint. We 

recommend that you stabilize an engine 

for at least 15 seconds at each setpoint 

and record the mean feedback speed 

and torque of the last (4 to 6) seconds. 

Use linear interpolation to determine 

intermediate speeds and torques. Use 

this series of speeds and torques to 

generate the power map as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(ii) For any variable-speed engine, you 

may perform an engine map by using a 

continuous sweep of speed by 

continuing to record the mean feedback 

speed and torque at 1 Hz or more 

frequently and increasing speed at a 

constant rate such that it takes (4 to 6) 

min to sweep from 95% of warm idle 

speed to the endpoint. Stop recording 

after you complete the sweep. From the 

series of mean speed and maximum 

torque values, use linear interpolation to 

determine intermediate values. Use this 

series of speeds and torques to generate 

the power map as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(iii) Determine the endpoint of the 

map using one of the following 

methods: 

(A) You may use as your endpoint the 

highest speed above maximum power at 

which (50±5) % of maximum power 

occurs. 

(B) You may use as your endpoint any 

speed higher than that specified in 

paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A) of this section. If 

you determine your endpoint for a 

continuous sweep according to this 

paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(B), you may base 

your compliance with the (4 to 6) min 

specification in paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of 

this section on the time it takes you to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44579 

reach the speed specified in paragraph 

(b)(5)(iii)(A) of this section. 

(C) If the speed specified in paragraph 

(b)(5)(iii)(A) of this section is unsafe 

(e.g, for ungoverned engines), use good 

engineering judgment to map up to the 

maximum safe speed. If the engine is 

equipped with a governor that prevents 

the engine from operating at the speeds 

specified in paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A) of 

this section, you may use the highest 

achievable speed as the endpoint. Note 

that under § 1065.10(c)(1) we may allow 

you to disregard portions of the map 

when selecting maximum test speed if 

the specified procedure would result in 

a duty cycle that does not represent inuse operation. 

* * * * * 

273. Section 1065.520 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures 

and pre-test data collection. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Ambient temperature of (20 to 30) 

°C. However, testing may occur at 

higher ambient temperatures without 

EPA approval if it is not practical to 

achieve an ambient temperature at or 

below 30 °C. See § 1065.125 for 

requirements related to intake air 

temperature. 

* * * * * 

274. Section 1065.530 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g)(3)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.530 Emission test sequence. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) Analyze non-conventional 

gaseous batch samples, such as ethanol 

(NMHCE) as soon as practical using 

good engineering judgment. 

* * * * * 

275. Section 1065.545 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

removing paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.545 Validation of proportional flow 

control for batch sampling. 

* * * * * 

276. A new § 1065.546 is added to 

subpart F to read as follows: 

§ 1065.546 Validation of minimum dilution 

ratio for PM batch sampling. 

Use continuous flows and/or tracer 

gas concentrations for transient and 

ramped modal cycles to validate the 

minimum dilution ratios for PM batch 

sampling as specified in § 1065.140(e)(2) 

over the test interval. You may use 

mode-average values instead of 

continuous measurements for discrete 

mode steady-state duty cycles. 

Determine the minimum primary and 

minimum overall dilution ratios using 

one of the following methods (you may 

use a different method for each stage of 

dilution): 

(a) Determine minimum dilution ratio 

based on molar flow data. This involves 

determination of at least two of the 

following three quantities: raw exhaust 

flow (or previously diluted flow), 

dilution air flow, and dilute exhaust 

flow. You may determine the raw 

exhaust flow rate based on the measured 

intake air molar flow rate and the 

chemical balance terms in § 1065.655. 

You may alternatively estimate the 

molar raw exhaust flow rate based on 

intake air, fuel rate measurements, and 

fuel properties, consistent with good 

engineering judgment. 

(b) Determine minimum dilution ratio 

based on tracer gas (e.g., CO2) 

concentrations in the raw (or previously 

diluted) and dilute exhaust corrected for 

any removed water. 

(c) Use good engineering judgment to 

develop your own method of 

determining dilution ratios. 

277. Section 1065.550 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.550 Gas analyzer range validation, 

drift validation, and drift correction. 

* * * * * 

(b) Drift validation and drift 

correction. Calculate two sets of brakespecific emission results for each test 

interval. Calculate one set using the data 

before drift correction and calculate the 

other set after correcting all the data for 

drift according to § 1065.672. Use the 

two sets of brake-specific emission 

results to validate the duty cycle for 

drift as follows: 

(1) The duty cycle is validated for 

drift if you satisfy one of the following 

criteria: 

(i) For each test interval of the duty 

cycle and for each regulated pollutant, 

the difference between the uncorrected 

and the corrected brake-specific 

emission values over the test interval is 

within ±4% of the uncorrected value or 

applicable emission standard, 

whichever is greater. 

(ii) For the entire duty cycle and for 

each regulated pollutant, the difference 

between the uncorrected and corrected 

composite brake-specific emission 

values over the entire duty cycle is 

within ±4% of the uncorrected value or 

the applicable emission standard, 

whichever is greater. Note that for 

purposes of drift validation using 

composite brake-specific emission 

values over the entire duty cycle, leave 

unaltered any negative emission results 

over a given test interval (i.e., do not set 

them to zero). A third calculation of 

composite brake-specific emission 

values is required for final reporting. 

This calculation uses drift-corrected 

mass (or mass rate) values from each test 

interval and sets any negative mass (or 

mass rate) values to zero before 

calculating the composite brake-specific 

emission values over the entire duty 

cycle. 

(2) For standards consisting of 

multiple emission mass measurements 

(such as NMHC+NOX or separate NO 

and NO2 measurements to comply with 

a NOX standard), the duty cycle shall be 

validated for drift if you satisfy one of 

the following: 

(i) For each test interval of the duty 

cycle and for each individual mass, the 

difference between the uncorrected and 

the corrected brake-specific emission 

values over the test interval is within 

±4% of the uncorrected value; or 

(ii) For the entire duty cycle the 

difference between the combined (e.g. 

NMHC + NOX) uncorrected and 

combined (e.g. NMHC + NOX) corrected 

composite brake-specific emissions 

values over the entire duty cycle is 

within ±4% of the uncorrected value or 

the applicable emissions standard, 

whichever is greater. 

(3) If the test is not validated for drift, 

you may consider the test results for the 

duty cycle to be valid only if, using 

good engineering judgment, the 

observed drift does not affect your 

ability to demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable emission standards. For 

example, if the drift-corrected value is 

less than the standard by at least two 

times the absolute difference between 

the uncorrected and corrected values, 

you may consider the data to be valid 

for demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable standard. 

Subpart G—[Revised] 

278. Section 1065.602 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e) and (l)(1)(iii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.602 Statistics. 

* * * * * 

(e) Accuracy. Determine accuracy as 

described in this paragraph (e). Make 

multiple measurements of a standard 

quantity to create a set of observed 

values, yi, and compare each observed 

value to the known value of the 

standard quantity. The standard 

quantity may have a single known 

value, such as a gas standard, or a set 

of known values of negligible range, 

such as a known applied pressure 

produced by a calibration device during 

repeated applications. The known value 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

of the standard quantity is represented 

by yrefi

. If you use a standard quantity 

with a single value yrefi would be 

constant. Calculate an accuracy value as 

follows: 

accuracy N y y

N

= − ( ) =

∑1 1

1

ref i i

Eq. 1065.602-4

Example: 

yref = 1800.0 

N = 3 

y1 = 1806.4 

y2 = 1803.1 

y3 = 1798.9 

accuracy = −+−+−

1

3

(( . . ) ( . . ) ( . . 1806 4 1800 0 1803 1 1800 0 1798 9 1800 0))

accuracy = + +− (( . ) ( . ) ( . )) 1

3

64 31 11

accuracy = 2.8 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(1) * * * (iii) Use your estimated values as 

described in the following example 

calculation: 

x

e W

Mn t

P PP

P

exp

std ref

exhmax duty cycle

ref frict max

m

= ⋅

⋅⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ ( ) Δ

ax

Eq. 1065.602-13 ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

n

pV f N

R T exhmax

max disp nmax

stroke

V

max

= Eq. 1065.602-14

⋅⋅ ⋅ ⋅

⋅

2

η

Example: 

eNOX = 2.5 g/(kW hr) 

Wref = 11.883 kW hr 

MNOX = 46.0055 g/mol = 46.0055 10¥6 g/μmol 

Dtdutycycle = 20 min = 1200 s 

= 35.65 kW 

= 15% 

Pmax = 125 kW 

pmax = 300 kPa = 300000 Pa 

Vdisp = 3.0 L = 0.0030 m3

fnmax = 2800 rev/min = 46.67 rev/s 

Nstroke = 4 1/rev 

hV = 0.9 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

Tmax = 348.15 K 

nexhmax =

⋅ ⋅ ⋅⋅

⋅

300000 0 0030 46 67 2

4

0 9

8 314472 348 15

. ..

. .

= 6.53 mol/s 

xexp = ⋅

⋅⋅⋅ ⋅⎛ + ⋅ −

2 5 11 883

46 0055 10 6 53 1200 35 65 0 15 125

125

6

. .

. . . (. )

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

= 189.4 μmol/mol 

* * * * * 

279. Section 1065.610 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(3) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 1065.610 Duty cycle generation. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Intermediate speed. If your 

normalized duty cycle specifies a speed 

as ‘‘intermediate speed,’’ use your 

torque-versus-speed curve to determine 

the speed at which maximum torque 

occurs. This is peak torque speed. If 

maximum torque occurs in a flat region 

of the torque-versus-speed curve, your 

peak torque speed is the midpoint 

between the lowest and highest speeds 

at which the trace reaches the flat 

region. For purposes of this paragraph 

(c)(3), a flat region is one in which 

measured torque values are within 2.0% 

of the maximum recorded value. 

Identify your reference intermediate 

speed as one of the following values: 

* * * * * 

280. Section 1065.640 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding 

paragraph (c)(3)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.640 Flow meter calibration 

calculations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) PDP volume pumped per 

revolution, Vrev (m3/rev): 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.009</MATH> EP28AU09.010</MATH> EP28AU09.011</MATH> EP28AU09.012</MATH> EP28AU09.013</GPH> EP28AU09.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44581 

V n RT

P f rev

ref in

in nPDP

= Eq. 1065.640-2 ⋅ ⋅

⋅



Example: 

n ̇ ref = 25.096 mol/s 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

Tin = 299.5 K 

Pin = 98290 Pa 

fnPDP = 1205.1 rev/min = 20.085 rev/s 

Vrev = ⋅ ⋅

⋅

25 096 8 314472 299 5

98290 20 085

.. .

.

Vrev = 0.03166 m3/rev 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) For CFV systems measuring 

dilute flow only, you may calculate rCFV

using Equation 1065.640–13 instead of 

Equation 1065.640–8. 

* * * * * 

281. Section 1065.642 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.642 SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow 

rate calculations. 

* * * * * 

(a) PDP molar flow rate. Based upon 

the speed at which you operate the PDP 

for a test interval, select the 

corresponding slope, a1, and intercept, 

a0, as calculated in § 1065.640, to 

calculate molar flow rate, n ̇ , as follows: 

n f p V

R T = ⋅ ⋅⋅ nPDP

in rev

in

Eq. 1065.642-1

Where: 

V a

f

p p

p

a rev

nPDP

out in

out

= ⋅ Eq.. 1065.642-2 = + 1

0

Example: 

a1 = 50.43 

ll = 755.0 rev/min = 12.58 rev/s 

pout = 99950 Pa 

pin = 98575 Pa 

a0 = 0.056 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol.K) 

Tin = 323.5 K 

Cp = 1000 (J/m3)/kPa 

Ct = 60 s/min 

Vrev = ⋅ − +

50 43

12 58

99950 98575

99950

0 056 .

. .

Vrev = 0.52618 m3/rev 

n= ⋅ ⋅

⋅ 12 58 98575 0 526188 314472 323 5 . .. .

= 242.592 mol/s 

* * * * * 

282. Section 1065.645 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.645 Amount of water in an ideal 

gas. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) For humidity measurements over 

ice at ambient temperatures from (¥100 

to 0) °C, use the following equation: 

log log 10 sat

sat

10 p T ( ) =− ⋅ − ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

9 096853 ⎟ − ⋅ 273 16 1 3 566506 273 . . . . . . . 16 0 876812 1

273 16

0 2138602

T

T

sat

sat Eq. 10 ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ + ⋅− ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ − 65.645-2

Example: 

Tice = –15.4 °C 

Tice = –15.4+ 273.15 = 257.75 K 

log log 10 sat 10 ( ) p =− ⋅ − ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ 9 096853 − ⋅ 273 16

257 75

1 3 566506 2 . .

. . 73 16257 75

0 876812 1 257 75

273 16

0 2138602 .

. . .. . ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ + ⋅− ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ −

log10(pH20) =- 0.798207 

pH20 = 10 0.79821 = 0.159145 kPa 

* * * * * 

(c) Relative humidity. If you measure 

humidity as a relative humidity, RH %, 

determine the amount of water in an 

ideal gas, xH2O, as follows: 

x

RH p

p H2O

H2O

abs

= Eq. 1065.645-4 %⋅

Where: 

xH20 = amount of water in an ideal gas. 

RH % = relative humidity. 

pH20 = water vapor pressure at 100% relative 

humidity at the location of your relative 

humidity measurement,, Tsat = Tamb.

pabs = wet static absolute pressure at the 

location of your relative humidity 

measurement. 

Example: 

RH % = 50.77% 

pabs = 99.980 kPa 

Tsat = Tamb = 20 °C 

Using Eq. 1065.645–1, 

pH20 = 2.3371 kPa 

xH2O = (50.77%· 2.3371)/99.980 

xH2O = 0.011868 mol/mol 

283. Section 1065.650 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) 

introductory text, (d) introductory text, 

(d)(7), (e)(2), (f)(4), (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.650 Emission calculations. 

(a) General. Calculate brake-specific 

emissions over each applicable duty 

cycle or test interval. For test intervals 

with zero work (or power), calculate the 

emission mass (or mass rate), but not 

brake-specific emissions. For duty 

cycles with multiple test intervals, refer 

to the standard-setting part for 

calculations you need to determine a 

composite result, such as a calculation 

that weights and sums the results of 

individual test intervals in a duty cycle. 

If the standard-setting part does not 

include those calculations, use the 

equations in paragraph (g) of this 

section. This section is written based on 

rectangular integration, where each 

indexed value (i.e., ‘‘i’’) represents (or 

approximates) the mean value of the 

parameter for its respective time 

interval, delta-t. You may also integrate 

continuous signals using trapezoidal 

integration consistent with good 

engineering judgment. 

(b) Brake-specific emissions over a 

test interval. We specify three 

alternative ways to calculate brakeVerDate Nov<24>2008 21:36 Aug 27, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28AUP2.SGM 28AUP2

EP28AU09.015</GPH> EP28AU09.016</GPH> EP28AU09.017</GPH> EP28AU09.018</GPH> EP28AU09.019</MATH> EP28AU09.084</MATH> EP28AU09.020</MATH> EP28AU09.021</MATH> EP28AU09.022</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44582 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

specific emissions over a test interval, as 

follows: 

(1) For any testing, you may calculate 

the total mass of emissions, as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section, and 

divide it by the total work generated 

over the test interval, as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, using the 

following equation: 

e

m

W

= Eq. 1065.650-1

Example: 

mNOx = 64.975 g 

W = 25.783 kW.hr 

eNOx = 64.975/25.783 

eNOx = 2.520 g/(kW.hr) 

(2) For discrete-mode steady-state 

testing, you may calculate the brakespecific emissions over a test interval 

using the ratio of emission mass rate to 

power, as described in paragraph (e) of 

this section, using the following 

equation: 

e

m

P = Eq. 1065.650-2

(3) For field testing, you may calculate 

the ratio of total mass to total work, 

where these individual values are 

determined as described in paragraph (f) 

of this section. You may also use this 

approach for laboratory testing, 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. Good engineering judgment 

dictates that this method not be used if 

there are any work flow paths described 

in § 1065.210 that cross the system 

boundary, other than the primary output 

shaft (crankshaft). This is a special case 

in which you use a signal linearly 

proportional to raw exhaust molar flow 

rate to determine a value proportional to 

total emissions. You then use the same 

linearly proportional signal to 

determine total work using a chemical 

balance of fuel, intake air, and exhaust 

as described in § 1065.655, plus 

information about your engine’s brakespecific fuel consumption. Under this 

method, flow meters need not meet 

accuracy specifications, but they must 

meet the applicable linearity and 

repeatability specifications in subpart D 

or subpart J of this part. The result is a 

brake-specific emission value calculated 

as follows: 

e

m

W

= 

 Eq. 1065.650-3

Example: 

= 805.5 g 

= 52.102 kW.hr 

eCO = 805.5/52.102 

eCO = 2.520 g/(kW.hr) 

(c) Total mass of emissions over a test 

interval. To calculate the total mass of 

an emission, multiply a concentration 

by its respective flow. For all systems, 

make preliminary calculations as 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, then use the method in 

paragraphs (c)(2) through (4) of this 

section that is appropriate for your 

system. Calculate the total mass of 

emissions as follows: 

* * * * * 

(d) Total work over a test interval. To 

calculate the total work from the engine 

over a test interval, add the total work 

from all the work paths described in 

§ 1065.210 that cross the system 

boundary including electrical energy/ 

work, mechanical shaft work, and fluid 

pumping work. For all work paths, 

except the engine’s primary output shaft 

(crankshaft), the total work for the path 

over the test interval is the integration 

of the net work flow rate (power) out of 

the system boundary. When energy/ 

work flows into the system boundary, 

this work flow rate signal becomes 

negative; in this case, include these 

negative work rate values in the 

integration to calculate total work from 

that work path. Some work paths may 

result in a negative total work. Include 

negative total work values from any 

work path in the calculated total work 

from the engine rather than setting the 

values to zero. The rest of this paragraph 

(d) describes how to calculate total work 

from the engine’s primary output shaft 

over a test interval. Before integrating 

power on the engine’s primary output 

shaft, adjust the speed and torque data 

for the time alignment used in 

§ 1065.514(c). Any advance or delay 

used on the feedback signals for cycle 

validation must also be used for 

calculating work. Account for work of 

accessories according to § 1065.110. 

Exclude any work during cranking and 

starting. Exclude work during actual 

motoring operation (negative feedback 

torques), unless the engine was 

connected to one or more energy storage 

devices. Examples of such energy 

storage devices include hybrid 

powertrain batteries and hydraulic 

accumulators, like the ones illustrated 

in Figure 1 of § 1065.210. Exclude any 

work during reference zero-load idle 

periods (0% speed or idle speed with 0 

N.

m reference torque). Note, that there 

must be two consecutive reference zero 

load idle points to establish a period 

where this applies. Include work during 

idle points with simulated minimum 

torque such as Curb Idle Transmissions 

Torque (CITT) for automatic 

transmissions in ‘‘drive’’. The work 

calculation method described in 

paragraphs (b)(1) though (7) of this 

section meets these requirements using 

rectangular integration. You may use 

other logic that gives equivalent results. 

For example, you may use a trapezoidal 

integration method as described in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(7) Integrate the resulting values for 

power over the test interval. Calculate 

total work as follows: 

W Pt

N

= ⋅ =

∑ i

i

Δ Eq. 1065.650-10 1

Where: 

W = total work from the primary output shaft 

Pi = instantaneous power from the primary 

output shaft over an interval i. 

Pi = fni · Ti

Eq. 1065.650–11 

Example: 

N = 9000 

fn1 = 1800.2 rev/min 

fn2 = 1805.8 rev/min 

T1 = 177.23 N·m 

T2 = 175.00 N·m 

Crev = 2 · π rad/rev 

Ct1 = 60 s/min 

Cp = 1000 (N·m·rad/s)/kW 

frecord = 5 Hz 

Ct2 = 3600 s/hr 

P1

1800 2 177 23 2 3 14159

60 1000 = ⋅ ⋅⋅⋅

.. .

P1 = 33.41 kW 

P2 = 33.09 kW 

Using Eq. 1065.650–5, 

Dt = 1⁄5 = 0.2 s 

W

P = ( . . ... ) . 33 41 33 09 0 2 + ++ ⋅

3600

9000

W = 16.875 kW·hr 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) To calculate an engine’s mean 

steady-state total power, P, add the 

mean steady-state power from all the 

work paths described in § 1065.210 that 

cross the system boundary including 

electrical power, mechanical shaft 

power, and fluid pumping power. For 

all work paths, except the engine’s 

primary output shaft (crankshaft), the 

mean steady-state power over the test 

interval is the integration of the net 

work flow rate (power) out of the system 

boundary divided by the period of the 

test interval. When power flows into the 

system boundary, the power/work flow 

rate signal becomes negative; in this 

case, include these negative power/work 

rate values in the integration to 

calculate the mean power from that 

work path. Some work paths may result 

in a negative mean power. Include 

negative mean power values from any 

work path in the mean total power from 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2ep28au09.023</MATH> ep28au09.024</MATH> ep28au09.025</MATH> ep28au09.026</MATH> EP28AU09.027</MATH> EP28AU09.028</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44583 

the engine rather than setting these 

values to zero. The rest of this paragraph 

(e)(2) describes how to calculate the 

mean power from the engine’s primary 

output shaft. Calculate using Equation 

1065.650–13, noting that P, fn and T 

refer to mean power, mean rotational 

shaft frequency, and mean torque from 

the primary output shaft. Account for 

the power of simulated accessories 

according to § 1065.110 (reducing the 

mean primary output shaft power or 

torque by the accessory power or 

torque). Set the power to zero during 

actual motoring operation (negative 

feedback torques), unless the engine was 

connected to one or more energy storage 

devices. Examples of such energy 

storage devices include hybrid 

powertrain batteries and hydraulic 

accumulators, like the ones illustrated 

in Figure 1 of § 1065.210. Set the power 

to zero for modes with a zero reference 

load (0 N·m reference torque or 0 kW 

reference power). Include power during 

idle modes with simulated minimum 

torque or power. 

P fT = ⋅ n Eq. 1065.650-13

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) Example. The following example 

shows how to calculate mass of 

emissions using proportional values: 

N = 3000 

frecord = 5 Hz 

efuel = 285 g/(kW·hr) 

wfuel = 0.869 g/g 

Mc = 12.0107 g/mol = 3.922 ∼mol/s = 14119.2 

mol/hr 

xCcombdry1 = 91.634 mmol/mol = 0.091634 

mol/mol 

xH2Oexh1 = 27.21 mmol/mol = 0.02721 mol/ 

mol 

Using Eq. 1065.650–5, 

Dt = 0.2 s 







W

n x

x =

⋅

+

+ ⋅

+

12 0107 3 922 0 091634

1 0 02721 1

2 . . .

.

Ccombdry2

H2Oexh2

Ccombdry3000

H2Oexh3000

+ + ⋅

+

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⋅

⋅

... . 



n x

x

3000

1

0 2

285 0.869

= 5.09 (kW·hr) 

(g) Brake-specific emissions over a 

duty cycle with multiple test intervals. 

The standard-setting part may specify a 

duty cycle with multiple test intervals, 

such as with discrete-mode steady-state 

testing. Unless we specify otherwise, 

calculate composite brake-specific 

emissions over the duty cycle as 

described in this paragraph (g). If a 

measured mass (or mass rate) is 

negative, set it to zero for calculating 

composite brake-specific emissions, but 

leave it unchanged for drift validation. 

In the case of calculating composite 

brake-specific emissions relative to a 

combined emission standard (such as a 

NOX + NMHC standard), change any 

negative mass (or mass rate) values to 

zero for a particular pollutant before 

combining the values for the different 

pollutants. 

(1) Use the following equation to 

calculate composite brake-specific 

emissions for duty cycles with multiple 

test intervals all with prescribed 

durations, such as cold-start and hotstart transient cycles: 

e

WF m

WF W

i i

i

N

i i

i

composite N = Eq. 1065.650-17

⋅

⋅

=

=

∑

∑

1

1

Where: 

i = test interval number. 

N = number of test intervals. 

WF = weighting factor for the test interval as 

defined in the standard-setting part. 

m = mass of emissions over the test interval 

as determined in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

W = total work from the engine over the test 

interval as determined in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

Example: 

N = 2 

WF1 = 0.1428 

WF2 = 0.8572 

m1 = 70.125 g 

m2 = 64.975 g 

W1 = 25.783 kW·hr 

W2 = 25.783 kW·hr 

eNO composite x = ( ) ⋅ + ⋅ ( )

⋅

0 1428 70 125 0 8572 64 975

0 1428 25 783

.. ..

( ) . . + ⋅ ( ) 0 8572 25 783 . .

eNOxcomposite = 2.548 g/kW·hr 

(2) Calculate composite brake-specific 

emissions for duty cycles with multiple 

test intervals that allow use of varying 

duration, such as discrete-mode steadystate duty cycles, as follows: 

(i) Use the following equation if you 

calculate brake-specific emissions over 

test intervals based on total mass and 

total work as described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section: 

e

WF m

t

WF W

t

i

i

i i

N

i

i

i i

composite N = Eq. 1065.650-18

⋅

⋅

=

=

∑

∑

1

1

Where 

i = test interval number. 

N = number of test intervals. 

WF = weighting factor for the test interval as 

defined in the standard-setting part. 

m = mass of emissions over the test interval 

as determined in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

W = total work from the engine over the test 

interval as determined in paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

t = duration of the test interval. 

Example: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.029</MATH> EP28AU09.030</MATH> EP28AU09.031</MATH> EP28AU09.032</MATH> EP28AU09.033</MATH>
44584 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

N = 2 

WF1 = 0.85 

WF2 = 0.15 

m1 = 1.3753 g 

m2 =-0.4135 g 

t1 =-120 s 

t2 =-200 s 

W1 = 2.8375 kW.hr 

W2 = 0.0 kW.hr 

eNO composite x =

⋅ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ + ⋅ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ 0 85 1 3753

120

0 15 0 4135

200

0 8

. . . .

. 5 2 8375

120

0 15 0 0

200 ⋅ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ + ⋅ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ . . .

eNOxcomposite = 0.5001 g/kW.hr (ii) Use the following equation if you 

calculate brake-specific emissions over 

test intervals based on the ratio of mass 

rate to power as described in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section: 

e

WF m

WF P

i i

i

N

i i

i

composite N = Eq. 1065.650-19

⋅

⋅

=

=

∑

∑



1

1

Where 

i = test interval number. 

N = number of test intervals. 

WF = weighting factor for the test interval as 

defined in the standard-setting part. 

m

Ô = mean steady-state mass rate of emissions 

over the test interval as determined in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

P ̄ is the mean steady-state power over the test 

interval as described in paragraph (e) of 

this section. 

Example: 

N = 2 

WF1 = 0.85 

WF2 = 0.15 

m

Ô1 = 2.25842 g/hr 

m

Ô2 = 0.063443 g/hr 

P ̄ 1 = 4.5383 kW 

P ̄ 2 = 0.0 kW 

eNO composite x = ( ) ⋅ + ⋅ ( )

( ) ⋅ +

0 85 2 25842 0 15 0 063443

0 85 4 5383

.. ..

. . ( ) 0 15 0 0 . . ⋅

eNOxcomposite = 0.5001 g/kW.hr 

(h) Rounding. Round the final brakespecific emission values to be compared 

to the applicable standard only after all 

calculations are complete (including 

any drift correction, applicable 

deterioration factors, adjustment factors, 

and allowances) and the result is in g/ 

(kW·hr) or units equivalent to the units 

of the standard, such as g/(hp.

hr). See 

the definition of ‘‘Round’’ in 

§ 1065.1001. 

284. Section 1065.655 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory 

text, (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.655 Chemical balances of fuel, 

intake air, and exhaust. 

* * * * * 

(c) Chemical balance procedure. The 

calculations for a chemical balance 

involve a system of equations that 

require iteration. We recommend using 

a computer to solve this system of 

equations. You must guess the initial 

values of up to three quantities: the 

amount of water in the measured flow, 

xH2Oexh, fraction of dilution air in 

diluted exhaust, xdil/exh, and the amount 

of products on a C1 basis per dry mole 

of dry measured flow, xCcombdry. You 

may use time-weighted mean values of 

combustion air humidity and dilution 

air humidity in the chemical balance; as 

long as your combustion air and 

dilution air humidities remain within 

tolerances of ±0.0025 mol/mol of their 

respective mean values over the test 

interval. For each emission 

concentration, x, and amount of water, 

xH2Oexh, you must determine their 

completely dry concentrations, xdry and 

xH2Oexhdry. You must also use your fuel’s 

atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, α, 

oxygen-to-carbon ratio, β, sulfur-tocarbon ratio, γ, and nitrogen-to-carbon 

ratio, δ. You may measure α, β, γ, and 

δ or you may use default values for a 

given fuel as described in § 1065.655(d). 

Use the following steps to complete a 

chemical balance: 

* * * * * 

(3) Use the following symbols and 

subscripts in the equations for this 

paragraph (c): 

xdil/exh = amount of dilution gas or excess air 

per mole of exhaust. 

xH2Oexh = amount of water in exhaust per 

mole of exhaust. 

xCcombdry = amount of carbon from fuel in the 

exhaust per mole of dry exhaust. 

xH2dry = amount of H2 in exhaust per amount 

of dry exhaust. 

KH2Ogas = water-gas reaction equilibrium 

coefficient. You may use 3.5 or calculate 

your own value using good engineering 

judgment. 

xH2Oexhdry = amount of water in exhaust per 

dry mole of dry exhaust. 

xprod/intdry = amount of dry stoichiometric 

products per dry mole of intake air. 

xdil/exhdry = amount of dilution gas and/or 

excess air per mole of dry exhaust. 

xint/exhdry = amount of intake air required to 

produce actual combustion products per 

mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust. 

xraw/exhdry = amount of undiluted exhaust, 

without excess air, per mole of dry (raw 

or diluted) exhaust. 

xO2int = amount of intake air O2 per mole of 

intake air. 

xCO2intdry = amount of intake air CO2 per mole 

of dry intake air. You may use xCO2intdry

= 375 μmol/mol, but we recommend 

measuring the actual concentration in 

the intake air. 

xH2Ointdry = amount of intake air H2O per mole 

of dry intake air. 

xCO2int = amount of intake air CO2 per mole 

of intake air. 

xCO2dil = amount of dilution gas CO2 per mole 

of dilution gas. 

xCO2dildry = amount of dilution gas CO2 per 

mole of dry dilution gas. If you use air 

as diluent, you may use xCO2dildry = 375 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.034</MATH> EP28AU09.035</MATH> EP28AU09.036</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44585 

μmol/mol, but we recommend measuring 

the actual concentration in the intake air. 

xH2Odildry = amount of dilution gas H2O per 

mole of dry dilution gas. 

xH2Odil = amount of dilution gas H2O per mole 

of dilution gas. 

x[emission]meas = amount of measured emission 

in the sample at the respective gas 

analyzer. 

x[emission]dry = amount of emission per dry 

mole of dry sample. 

xH2O[emission]meas = amount of water in sample 

at emission-detection location. Measure 

or estimate these values according to 

§ 1065.145(e)(2). 

xH2Oint = amount of water in the intake air, 

based on a humidity measurement of 

intake air. 

α = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

β = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

γ = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

δ = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

(4) Use the following equations to 

iteratively solve for xdil/exh, xH2Oexh, and 

xCcombdry: 

x

x

x dil/exh

raw/exhdry

H2Oexhdry

= − Eq. 1065.655-1

+

1

1

x

x

x H2Oexh

H2Oexhdry

H2Oexhdry

= Eq. 1065.655-2 1+

x x xx xx x Ccombdry CO2dry COdry THCd = ++ − ⋅ − ry CO2dry dil/exhdry CO2int int/exhdry ⋅ x Eq. 1065.655-3

x

x x xx

K x H2dry

COdry H2Oexhdry H2Odil dil/exhdry

H2O-gas CO

= ⋅ −⋅ ( )

⋅ 2dry CO2dil dil/exhdry

Eq. 1065.655-4 ( ) − ⋅ x x

x x x xx x H2Oexhdry Ccombdry THCdr = − ( ) y H2Odil dil/exhdry H2Oi +⋅ +

α

2 nt int/exhdry H2dry ⋅ − x x Eq. 1065.655-5

x

x

x dil/exhdry

dil/exh

H2Oexh 1

= Eq. 1065.655-6 −

x

x

xx x int/exhdry

O2int

Ccombdry THCdry C 2 = ⋅ − ++ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟( ) − − 1

2

2 2 α β γ ( ) Odry NOdry NO2dry H2dry −− + Eq. 1065.655-7 ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ x xx 2

x x x xx raw/exhdry Ccombdry THCdry THCdry CO 2

= ++ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟( ) − + +

1

2

2 α β δ ( ) dry NO2dry H2dry int/exhdry − + Eq. 1065.655-8 ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

xx x ⎟ +

x

x

x O2int

CO2intdry

H2Ointdry

= Eq. 1065.655-9 −

+

0 209820

1

.

x

x

x CO2int

CO2intdry

H2Ointdry

= Eq. 1065.655-10 1+

x

x

x H2Ointdry

H2Oint

H2Oint

= Eq. 1065.655-11 1−


EP28AU09.037</MATH> EP28AU09.038</MATH> EP28AU09.039</MATH> EP28AU09.040</MATH> EP28AU09.041</MATH> EP28AU09.042</MATH> EP28AU09.043</MATH> EP28AU09.044</MATH> EP28AU09.045</MATH> EP28AU09.046</MATH> EP28AU09.047</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44586 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

x

x

x CO2dil

CO2dildry

H2Odildry

= Eq. 1065.655-12 1+

x

x

x H2Odildry

H2Odil

H2Odil

= Eq. 1065.655-13 1−

x

x

x COdry

COmeas

H2OCOmeas

= Eq. 1065.655-14 1−

x

x

x CO2dry

CO2meas

H2OCO2meas

= Eq. 1065.655-15 1−

x

x

x NOdry

NOmeas

H2ONOmeas

= Eq. 1065.655-16 1−

x

x

x NO2dry

NO2meas

H2ONO2meas

= Eq. 1065.655-17 1−

x

x

x THCdry

THCmeas

H2OTHCmeas

= Eq. 1065.655-18 1−

(5) The following example is a 

solution for xdil/exh, x H2Oexh, and xCcombdry

using the equations in paragraph (c)(4) 

of this section: 

x mol mol

x

dil/exh

H2Oexh

= −

+

=

=

+

1 0 184

1 35 50

1000

0 822

35 50

1 35

.

. . /

.

. . /

. . .

50

1000

34 29

0 025 29 3

1000000

47 6

100

=

Ccombdry =+ +

mmol mol

x

0000

0 371

1000

0 852 0 369

1000 −⋅− ⋅= 0 172 0 0249 . . . .. /

H2dry

mol mol

x = ⋅ −⋅ ( )

⋅ −⋅

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

29 3 0 036 0 012 0 852

3 5 25 2

1000

0 371

1000

0 852

.. . .

. . . . ⎠

⎟

= 8 5. / μmol mol

xH2Oexhdry = − ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ +⋅+⋅

1 8

2

0 0247 47 6

1000000

0 012 0 852 0 017 . . . .. . 0 172 8 5

1000000 . 0 036 . − = . / mol mol

x mol mol dil/exhdry = − = 0 822

1 0 036

0 852 .

. . /


EP28AU09.048</MATH> EP28AU09.049</MATH> EP28AU09.050</MATH> EP28AU09.051</MATH> EP28AU09.052</MATH> EP28AU09.053</MATH> EP28AU09.054</MATH> EP28AU09.055</MATH> EP28AU09.056</MATH> EP28AU09.057</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44587 

xint/exhdry = ⋅

− ++⋅ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ −

1

2 0 206

1 8

2

0 050 2 2 0 0003 0 0249 47 6

.

. . .. .

1000000

29 3

1000000

50 4

1000000

2 12 1

1000000

8 5

10

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ −

− −⋅ + . . ..

00000

0 172

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

= . / mol mol

xraw/exhdry =

− + ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ − ⎛

⎝

⎜

1

2

1 8

2

0 050 0 0001 0 0249 47 6

1000000

. .. . . ⎞

⎠

⎟ +

⋅+−+ ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠ 2 47 6

1000000

29 3

1000000

12 1

1000000

8 5

1000000

. . .. ⎟

⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎟

+ = 0 172 0 184 .. / mol mol

x mol mol O2

0 209820 0 000375

1 17 22

1000

0 206 int

. .

. = . / −

+

=

x mmol mol CO2

0 000375 1000

1 17 22

1000

0 369 int

.

. = . / ⋅

+

=

x mmol mol H2Ointdry =

−

= 16 93

1 16 93

1000

17 22 .

. . /

x mmol mol CO2dil =

+

= 0 375

1 12 01

1000

0 371 .

. . /

x mmol mol H2Odildry =

−

= 11 87

1 11 87

1000

12 01 .

. . /

x mmol mol COdry =

−

= 29 0

1 8 601

1000

29 3 .

. . /

x mmol mol CO2dry =

−

= 24 98

1 8 601

1000

25 2 .

. . /

x mmol mol NOdry =

−

= 50 0

1 8 601

1000

50 4 .

. . /

x mmol mol NO2dry =

−

= 12 0

1 8 601

1000

12 1 .

. . /

x mmol mol THCdry =

−

= 46

1 33 98

1000

47 6 . . /

α = 1.8 

β = 0.05 

γ = 0.0003 

δ = 0.0001 

(d) Carbon mass fraction. Determine 

carbon mass fraction of fuel, wc, using 

one of the following methods: 

(1) You may calculate wc as described 

in this paragraph (d)(1) based on 

measured fuel properties. To do so, you 

must determine values for α and β in all 

cases, but you may set g and d to zero 

if the default value listed in Table 1 of 

this section is zero. Calculate wc using 

the following equation: 

w

M

M M MMM C

C

C H OSN 1

= Eq. 1065.655-19 ⋅

⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ +⋅ +⋅

1

α β γδ

Where: 

WC = carbon mass fraction of fuel. 

MC = molar mass of carbon. 

α = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MH = molar mass of hydrogen. 

β = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MO = molar mass of oxygen. 

γ = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MS = molar mass of sulfur. 

δ = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MN = molar mass of nitrogen. 

α = 1.8 

β = 0.05 

γ = 0.0003 

δ = 0.0001 

C = 12.0107 

MH = 1.01 

MO = 15.9994 

MS = 32.0655 

MN = 14.0067 


EP28AU09.058</GPH> EP28AU09.059</MATH> EP28AU09.060</MATH> EP28AU09.061</MATH> EP28AU09.062</MATH> EP28AU09.063</MATH> EP28AU09.064</MATH> EP28AU09.065</MATH> EP28AU09.066</MATH> EP28AU09.067</MATH> EP28AU09.068</GPH> EP28AU09.069</GPH> EP28AU09.070</MATH>mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
44588 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

wC 1= ⋅

⋅ +⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅

1 12 0107

12 0107 1 8 1 01 0 05 15 9994 0 0003 32 0655

.

. .. . . . . + ⋅ 0 0001 14 0067 . .

WC = 0.8205 (2) You may use the default values in 

the following table to determine wc for 

a given fuel: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.655–DEFAULT VALUES OF α, β, γ, δ, AND wC, FOR VARIOUS FUELS

Fuel Atomic hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen-to-carbon 

ratios CHαOβSγNδ

Carbon mass 

fraction, wC g/g 

Gasoline .................................................................................... CH1.85O0S0N0 .......................................................................... 0.866 

#2 Diesel ................................................................................... CH1.80O0S0N0 .......................................................................... 0.869 

#1 Diesel ................................................................................... CH1.93O0S0N0 .......................................................................... 0.861 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas .......................................................... CH2.64O0S0N0 .......................................................................... 0.819 

Natural gas ............................................................................... CH3.78O0.016S0N0 ..................................................................... 0.747 

Ethanol ...................................................................................... CH3O0.5S0N0 ............................................................................ 0.521 

Methanol ................................................................................... CH4O1S0N0 .............................................................................. 0.375 

Residual fuel blends ................................................................. Must be determined by measured fuel properties as described in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

285. Section 1065.670 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.670 NOX intake-air humidity and 

temperature corrections. 

* * * * * 

(a) For compression-ignition engines, 

correct for intake-air humidity using the 

following equation: 

xNOxcor = xNOxuncor . (9.953 . xH2O + 0.832) 

Eq. 1065.670–1 

Example: 

xNOxuncor = 700.5 μmol/mol 

xH2O = 0.022 mol/mol 

xNOxcor = 700.5 . (9.953 . 0.022 + 0.832) 

xNOxcor = 736.2 μmol/mol 

(b) For spark-ignition engines, correct 

for intake-air humidity using the 

following equation: 

xx x NOxcor NOxuncor H2O = ⋅ ⋅+ ( ) 18 840 0 68094 . . Eq. 1065.670-2

xNOxuncor = 154.7 μmol/mol 

xH2O = 0.022 mol/mol 

xNOxcor = 154.7 . (18.840 . 0.022 + 0.68094) 

xNOxcor = 169.5 μmol/mol 

(c) Develop your own correction, 

based on good engineering judgment. 

286. Section 1065.690 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.690 Buoyancy correction for PM 

sample media. 

* * * * * 

(c) Air density. Because a PM balance 

environment must be tightly controlled 

to an ambient temperature of (22 ±1) °C 

and humidity has an insignificant effect 

on buoyancy correction, air density is 

primarily a function of atmospheric 

pressure. We therefore specify a 

buoyancy correction that is only a 

function of atmospheric pressure. Using 

good engineering judgment, you may 

develop and use your own buoyancy 

correction that includes the effects of 

temperature and dewpoint on density in 

addition to the effect of atmospheric 

pressure. 

* * * * * 

(e) Correction calculation. Correct the 

PM sample media for buoyancy using 

the following equations: 

m m cor uncor

air

weight

air

media

= ⋅ Eq. 1065.

−

−

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

1

1

ρ

ρ

ρ

ρ

690-1

Where: 

mcor = PM mass corrected for buoyancy. 

muncor = PM mass uncorrected for buoyancy. 

pair = density of air in balance environment. 

pweight = density of calibration weight used to 

span balance. 

pmedia = density of PM sample media, such as 

a filter. 

ρair

abs mix

amb

= Eq. 1065.690-2 ⋅

⋅

p M

R T

Where: 

pabs = absolute pressure in balance 

environment. 

Mmix = molar mass of air in balance 

environment. 

R = molar gas constant. 

Tamb = absolute ambient temperature of 

balance environment. 

Example: 

pabs = 99.980 kPa 

Tsat = Tdew = 9.5 °C 

Using Eq. 1065.645–1, 

pH20 = 1.1866 kPa 

Using Eq. 1065.645–3, 

xH2O = 0.011868 mol/mol 

Using Eq. 1065.640–9, 

Mmix = 28.83563 g/mol 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol.K) 

Tamb = 20 °C 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.071</MATH> EP28AU09.072</MATH> EP28AU09.073</MATH> EP28AU09.074</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44589 

ρair = ⋅

⋅

99 980 28 83563

8 314472 293 15

. .

. .

pair = 1.18282 kg/m3

muncorr = 100.0000 mg 

pweight = 8000 kg/m3

pmedia = 920 kg/m3

mcor = ⋅

−

−

⎡

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎤

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

100 0000

1 1 18282

8000

1 1 18282

920

.

.

.

mcor = 100.1139 mg 

Subpart H—[Revised] 

287. Section 1065.701 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.701 General requirements for test 

fuels. 

* * * * * 

(f) Service accumulation and field 

testing fuels. If we do not specify a 

service-accumulation or field-testing 

fuel in the standard-setting part, use an 

appropriate commercially available fuel 

such as those meeting minimum 

specifications from the following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.701—EXAMPLES OF SERVICE-ACCUMULATION AND FIELD-TESTING FUELS

Fuel category Subcategory Reference 

procedure1

Diesel ..................................................... Light distillate and light blends with residual ........................................................ ASTM D975–07b 

Middle distillate ..................................................................................................... ASTM D6985–04a 

Biodiesel (B100) .................................................................................................... ASTM D6751–07b 

Intermediate and residual fuel ............... All .......................................................................................................................... See § 1065.705 

Gasoline ................................................. Motor vehicle gasoline .......................................................................................... ASTM D4814–07a 

Minor oxygenated gasoline blends ....................................................................... ASTM D4814–07a 

Alcohol ................................................... Ethanol (Ed75–85) ................................................................................................ ASTM D5798–07 

Methanol (M70–M85) ............................................................................................ ASTM D5797–07 

Aviation fuel ........................................... Aviation gasoline ................................................................................................... ASTM D910–07 

Gas turbine ........................................................................................................... ASTM D1655–07e01 

Jet B wide cut ....................................................................................................... ASTM D6615–06 

Gas turbine fuel ..................................... General ................................................................................................................. ASTM D2880–03 

1ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. 

288. Section 1065.703 is amended by 

revising Table 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.703 Distillate diesel fuel. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.703—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISTILLATE DIESEL FUEL

Item Units Ultra low sulfur Low sulfur High sulfur Reference procedure 1

Cetane Number ................................. ...................... 40–50 40–50 40–50 ASTM D613–05. 

Distillation range: °C.

Initial boiling point ....................... ...................... 171–204 171–204 171–204 ASTM D86–07a. 

10 pct. point ................................ ...................... 204–238 204–238 204–238 

50 pct. point ................................ ...................... 243–282 243–282 243–282 

90 pct. point ................................ ...................... 293–332 293–332 293–332 

Endpoint ..................................... ...................... 321–366 321–366 321–366 

Gravity ............................................... °API .............. 32–37 32–37 32–37 ASTM D4052–96e01. 

Total sulfur, ultra low sulfur ............... mg/kg ........... 7–15 ........................ ........................ See 40 CFR 80.580. 

Total sulfur, low and high sulfur ........ mg/kg ........... ........................ 300–500 800–2500 ASTM D2622–07 or alternates as allowed under 40 CFR 80.580. 

Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall be 

paraffins, naphthalenes, and 

olefins).

g/kg .............. 100 100 100 ASTM D5186–03. 

Flashpoint, min. ................................. °C ................. 54 54 54 ASTM D93–07. 

Kinematic Viscosity ............................ cSt ................ 2.0–3.2 2.0–3.2 2.0–3.2 ASTM D445–06. 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

Subpart K—[Revised] 

289. Section 1065.1001 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Duty cycle’’ 

and ‘‘Percent’’ to read as follows: 

§ 1065.1001 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Duty cycle means one of the 

following: 

(1) A series of speed and torque 

values (or power values) that an engine 

must follow during a laboratory test. 

Duty cycles are specified in the 

standard-setting part. A single duty 

cycle may consist of one or more test 

intervals. A series of speed and torque 

values meeting the definition of this 

paragraph (1) may also be considered a 

test cycle. For example, a duty cycle 

may be a ramped-modal cycle, which 

has one test interval; a cold-start plus 

hot-start transient cycle, which has two 

test intervals; or a discrete-mode cycle, 

which has one test interval for each 

mode. 

(2) A set of weighting factors and the 

corresponding speed and torque values, 

where the weighting factors are used to 

combine the results of multiple test 

intervals into a composite result. 

* * * * * 

Percent (%) means a representation of 

exactly 0.01 (with infinite precision). 

Significant digits for the product of % 

and another value, or the expression of 

any other value as a percentage, are 

defined as follows: 

(1) Where we specify some percentage 

of a total value (such as tolerances), the 

calculated value has the same number of 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28AU09.089</MATH> EP28AU09.075</MATH>
44590 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

significant digits as the total value. The 

specified percentage by which the total 

value is multiplied has infinite 

precision. Note that not all displayed or 

recorded digits are significant. For 

example, 2% of a span value where the 

span value is 101.3302 is 2.026604. 

However, where the span value has 

limited precision such that only one 

digit to the right of the decimal is 

significant (i.e., the actual value is 

101.3), 2% of the span value is 2.026. 

(2) In other cases (such as some 

expressions of CO2 concentrations), 

determine the number of significant 

digits using the same method as you 

would use for determining the number 

of significant digits of any calculated 

value. For example, a calculated value 

of 0.0321, where the last three digits are 

significant, is equivalent to 3.21%. 

* * * * * 

290. Section 1065.1005 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, 

acronyms, and units of measure. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) This part uses the following molar 

masses or effective molar masses of 

chemical species: 

Symbol Quantity g/mol 

(10¥3kg·mol¥1) 

Mair ............................. molar mass of dry air 1 ............................................................................................................................. 28 .96559 

MAr ............................. molar mass of argon ................................................................................................................................. 39 .948 

MC .............................. molar mass of carbon ............................................................................................................................... 12 .0107 

MCO ............................ molar mass of carbon monoxide .............................................................................................................. 28 .0101 

MCO2 ........................... molar mass of carbon dioxide .................................................................................................................. 44 .0095 

MH .............................. molar mass of atomic hydrogen ............................................................................................................... 1 .00794 

MH2 ............................. molar mass of molecular hydrogen .......................................................................................................... 2 .01588 

MH2O ........................... molar mass of water ................................................................................................................................. 18 .01528 

MHe ............................. molar mass of helium ............................................................................................................................... 4 .002602 

MN .............................. molar mass of atomic nitrogen ................................................................................................................. 14 .0067 

MN2 ............................. molar mass of molecular nitrogen ............................................................................................................ 28 .0134 

MNMHC ........................ effective molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 2 ................................................................................ 13 .875389 

MNMHCE ...................... effective molar mass of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon 2 .............................................................. 13 .875389 

MNOx ........................... effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen 3 ............................................................................................ 46 .0055 

MO .............................. molar mass of atomic oxygen ................................................................................................................... 15 .9994 

MO2 ............................. molar mass of molecular oxygen .............................................................................................................. 31 .9988 

MC3H8 .......................... molar mass of propane ............................................................................................................................. 44 .09562 

MS ............................... molar mass of sulfur ................................................................................................................................. 32 .0655 

MTHC ........................... effective molar mass of total hydrocarbon 2 ............................................................................................. 13 .875389 

MTHCE ......................... effective molar mass of total hydrocarbon equivalent 2 ............................................................................ 13 .875389 

1See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air. 

2The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, of 1.85. 3The effective molar mass of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2. 

* * * * * 

PART 1068—GENERAL COMPLIANCE 

PROVISIONS FOR ENGINE 

PROGRAMS 

292. The heading for part 1068 is 

revised as set forth above. 

293. The authority citation for part 

1068 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

294. Section 1068.25 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1068.25 What information must I give to 

EPA? 

* * * * * 

(c) You are responsible for statements 

and information in your applications for 

certification or any other requests or 

reports. If you provide statements or 

information to someone for submission 

to EPA, you are responsible for these 

statements and information as if you 

had submitted them to EPA yourself. 

For example, knowingly submitting 

false information to someone else for 

inclusion in an application for 

certification would be deemed to be a 

submission of false information to the 

U.S. Government in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 1001. 

295. Section 1068.30 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the introductory text of 

the definition for ‘‘Engine’’. 

b. By revising the definition for 

‘‘Ultimate purchaser’’. 

c. By adding a definition for ‘‘Gas 

turbine engine’’ in alphabetical order. 

§ 1068.30 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

* * * * * 

Engine means an engine block with an 

installed crankshaft, or a gas turbine 

engine. The term engine does not 

include engine blocks without an 

installed crankshaft, nor does it include 

any assembly of reciprocating engine 

components that does not include the 

engine block. (Note: For purposes of this 

definition, any component that is the 

primary means of converting an engine’s 

energy into usable work is considered a 

crankshaft, whether or not it is known 

commercially as a crankshaft.) This 

includes complete and partially 

complete engines as follows: 

* * * * * 

Gas turbine engine means anything 

commercially known as a gas turbine 

engine or any collection of assembled 

engine components that is substantially 

similar to engines commercially known 

as gas turbine engines. For example, a 

jet engine is a gas turbine engine. Gas 

turbine engines may be complete or 

partially complete. Turbines that rely on 

external combustion such as steam 

engines are not gas turbine engines. 

* * * * * 

Ultimate purchaser means the first 

person who in good faith purchases a 

new engine or new piece of equipment 

for purposes other than resale. 

* * * * * 

296. Section 1068.31 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1068.31 What provisions apply to 

nonroad or stationary engines that change 

their status? 

* * * * * 

(d) Changing the status of a nonroad 

engine to be a new stationary engine as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44591 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section is a violation of § 1068.101(a)(1) 

unless the engine complies with all the 

requirements of this chapter for new 

stationary engines of the same type (for 

example, a compression-ignition engine 

rated at 40 kW) and model year. For a 

new stationary engine that is required to 

be certified under 40 CFR part 60, the 

engine must have been certified to be 

compliant with all the requirements that 

apply to new stationary engines of the 

same type and model year, and must be 

in its certified configuration. Note that 

the definitions of ‘‘model year’’ in the 

standard-setting part generally identifies 

the engine’s original date of 

manufacture as the basis for 

determining which standards apply if it 

becomes a stationary engine after it is no 

longer new. For example, see 40 CFR 

60.4219 and 60.4248. 

* * * * * 

297. Section 1068.45 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1068.45 General labeling provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Labels on packaging. Unless we 

specify otherwise, where we require 

engine/equipment labels that may be 

removable, you may instead label the 

packaging if the engines/equipment are 

packaged together as described in this 

paragraph (c). For example, this may 

involve packaging engines together by 

attaching them to a rack, binding them 

together on a pallet, or enclosing them 

in a box. The provisions of this 

paragraph (c) also apply for engines/ 

equipment boxed individually where 

you do not apply labels directly to the 

engines/equipment. The following 

provisions apply if you label the 

packaging instead of labeling engines/ 

equipment individually: 

* * * * * 

298. Section 1068.101 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1068.101 What general actions does this 

regulation prohibit? 

This section specifies actions that are 

prohibited and the maximum civil 

penalties that we can assess for each 

violation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

7522 and 7524. The maximum penalty 

values listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section apply as of January 12, 

2009. As described in paragraph (h) of 

this section, these maximum penalty 

limits are different for earlier violations 

and they may be adjusted as set forth in 

40 CFR part 19. 

(a) The following prohibitions and 

requirements apply to manufacturers of 

new engines, manufacturers of 

equipment containing these engines, 

and manufacturers of new equipment, 

except as described in subparts C and D 

of this part: 

(1) Introduction into commerce. You 

may not sell, offer for sale, or introduce 

or deliver into commerce in the United 

States or import into the United States 

any new engine/equipment after 

emission standards take effect for the 

engine/equipment, unless it is covered 

by a valid certificate of conformity for 

its model year and has the required 

label or tag. You also may not take any 

of the actions listed in the previous 

sentence with respect to any equipment 

containing an engine subject to this 

part’s provisions unless the engine is 

covered by a valid certificate of 

conformity for its model year and has 

the required engine label or tag. We may 

assess a civil penalty up to $37,500 for 

each engine or piece of equipment in 

violation. 

(i) For purposes of this paragraph 

(a)(1), a valid certificate of conformity is 

one that applies for the same model year 

as the model year of the equipment 

(except as allowed by § 1068.105(a)), 

covers the appropriate category of 

engines/equipment (such as locomotive 

or Marine SI), and conforms to all 

requirements specified for equipment in 

the standard-setting part. Engines/ 

equipment are considered not covered 

by a certificate unless they are in a 

configuration described in the 

application for certification. 

(ii) The requirements of this 

paragraph (a)(1) also cover new engines 

you produce to replace an older engine 

in a piece of equipment, unless the 

engine qualifies for the replacementengine exemption in § 1068.240. 

(iii) For engines used in equipment 

subject to equipment-based standards, 

you may not sell, offer for sale, or 

introduce or deliver into commerce in 

the United States or import into the 

United States any new engine unless it 

is covered by a valid certificate of 

conformity for its model year and has 

the required label or tag. See the 

standard-setting part for more 

information about how this prohibition 

applies. 

(2) Reporting and recordkeeping. This 

chapter requires you to record certain 

types of information to show that you 

meet our standards. You must comply 

with these requirements to make and 

maintain required records (including 

those described in § 1068.501). You may 

not deny us access to your records or 

the ability to copy your records if we 

have the authority to see or copy them. 

Also, you must give us complete and 

accurate reports and information 

without delay as required under this 

chapter. Failure to comply with the 

requirements of this paragraph is 

prohibited. We may assess a civil 

penalty up to $37,500 for each day you 

are in violation. In addition, knowingly 

submitting false information is a 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which may 

involve criminal penalties and up to 

five years imprisonment. 

(3) Testing and access to facilities. 

You may not keep us from entering your 

facility to test engines/equipment or 

inspect if we are authorized to do so. 

Also, you must perform the tests we 

require (or have the tests done for you). 

Failure to perform this testing is 

prohibited. We may assess a civil 

penalty up to $37,500 for each day you 

are in violation. 

(b) The following prohibitions apply 

to everyone with respect to the engines 

and equipment to which this part 

applies: 

(1) Tampering. You may not remove 

or render inoperative any device or 

element of design installed on or in 

engines/equipment in compliance with 

the regulations prior to its sale and 

delivery to the ultimate purchaser. You 

also may not knowingly remove or 

render inoperative any such device or 

element of design after such sale and 

delivery to the ultimate purchaser. This 

includes, for example, operating an 

engine without a supply of appropriate 

quality urea if the emissions control 

system relies on urea to reduce NOx 

emissions or the use of incorrect fuel or 

engine oil that renders the emissions 

control system inoperative. Section 

1068.120 describes how this applies to 

rebuilding engines. See the standardsetting part, which may include 

additional provisions regarding actions 

prohibited by this requirement. For a 

manufacturer or dealer, we may assess 

a civil penalty up to $37,500 for each 

engine or piece of equipment in 

violation. For anyone else, we may 

assess a civil penalty up to $3,750 for 

each day an engine or piece of 

equipment is operated in violation. This 

prohibition does not apply in any of the 

following situations: 

(i) You need to repair the engine/ 

equipment and you restore it to proper 

functioning when the repair is 

complete. 

(ii) You need to modify the engine/ 

equipment to respond to a temporary 

emergency and you restore it to proper 

functioning as soon as possible. 

(iii) You modify new engines/ 

equipment that another manufacturer 

has already certified to meet emission 

standards and recertify them under your 

own family. In this case you must tell 

the original manufacturer not to include 

the modified engines/equipment in the 

original family. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44592 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Defeat devices. You may not 

knowingly manufacture, sell, offer to 

sell, or install, any part that bypasses, 

impairs, defeats, or disables the control 

of emissions of any regulated pollutant, 

except as explicitly allowed by the 

standard-setting part. We may assess a 

civil penalty up to $3,750 for each part 

in violation. 

(3) Stationary engines. For an engine 

that is excluded from any requirements 

of this chapter because it is a stationary 

engine, you may not move it or install 

it in any mobile equipment except as 

allowed by the provisions of this 

chapter. You may not circumvent or 

attempt to circumvent the residencetime requirements of paragraph (2)(iii) 

of the nonroad engine definition in 

§ 1068.30. Anyone violating this 

paragraph (b)(3) is deemed to be a 

manufacturer in violation of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. We may assess a 

civil penalty up to $37,500 for each day 

you are in violation. 

(4) Competition engines/equipment. 

For uncertified engines/equipment that 

are excluded or exempted from any 

requirements of this chapter because 

they are to be used solely for 

competition, you may not use any of 

them in a manner that is inconsistent 

with use solely for competition. Anyone 

violating this paragraph (b)(4) is deemed 

to be a manufacturer in violation of 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. We may 

assess a civil penalty up to $37,500 for 

each day you are in violation. 

(5) Importation. You may not import 

an uncertified engine or piece of 

equipment if it is defined to be new in 

the standard-setting part with a model 

year for which emission standards 

applied. Anyone violating this 

paragraph (b)(5) is deemed to be a 

manufacturer in violation of paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. We may assess a 

civil penalty up to $37,500 for each day 

you are in violation. Note the following: 

(i) The definition of new is broad for 

imported engines/equipment; 

uncertified engines and equipment 

(including used engines and equipment) 

are generally considered to be new 

when imported. 

(ii) Used engines/equipment that were 

originally manufactured before 

applicable EPA standards were in effect 

are generally not subject to emission 

standards. 

(6) Warranty, recall, and maintenance 

instructions. You must meet your 

obligation to honor your emissionrelated warranty under § 1068.115, 

including any commitments you 

identify in your application for 

certification. You must also fulfill all 

applicable requirements under subpart 

F of this part related to emission-related 

defects and recalls. You must also 

provide emission-related installation 

and maintenance instructions as 

described in the standard-setting part. 

Failure to meet these obligations is 

prohibited. Also, except as specifically 

provided by regulation, you are 

prohibited from directly or indirectly 

communicating to the ultimate 

purchaser or a later purchaser that the 

emission-related warranty is valid only 

if the owner has service performed at 

authorized facilities or only if the owner 

uses authorized parts, components, or 

systems. We may assess a civil penalty 

up to $37,500 for each engine or piece 

of equipment in violation. 

(7) Labeling. (i) You may not remove 

or alter an emission control information 

label or other required permanent label 

except as specified in this paragraph 

(b)(7) or otherwise allowed by this 

chapter. Removing or altering an 

emission control information label is a 

violation of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. However, it is not a violation to 

remove a label in the following 

circumstances: 

(A) The engine is destroyed, is 

permanently disassembled, or otherwise 

loses its identity such that the original 

title to the engine is no longer valid. 

(B) The regulations specifically direct 

you to remove the label. For example, 

see § 1068.235. 

(C) The part on which the label is 

mounted needs to be replaced. In this 

case, you must have a replacement part 

with a duplicate of the original label 

installed by the certifying manufacturer 

or an authorized agent, except that the 

replacement label may omit the date of 

manufacture if applicable. We generally 

require labels to be permanently 

attached to parts that will not normally 

be replaced, but this provision allows 

for replacements in unusual 

circumstances, such as damage in a 

collision or other accident. 

(D) The original label is incorrect, 

provided that it is replaced with the 

correct label from the certifying 

manufacturer or an authorized agent. 

This allowance to replace incorrect 

labels does not affect whether the 

application of an incorrect original label 

is a violation. 

(ii) Removing or altering a temporary 

or removable label contrary to the 

provisions of this paragraph (b)(7)(ii) is 

a violation of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

(A) For labels identifying temporary 

exemptions, you may not remove or 

alter the label while the engine/ 

equipment is in an exempt status. The 

exemption is automatically revoked for 

each engine/equipment for which the 

label has been removed. 

(B) For temporary or removable 

consumer information labels, only the 

ultimate purchaser may remove the 

label. 

(iii) You may not apply a false 

emission control information label. You 

also may not manufacture, sell, or offer 

to sell false labels. The application, 

manufacture, sale, or offer for sale of 

false labels is a violation of this section 

(such as paragraph (a)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section). Note that applying an 

otherwise valid emission control 

information label to the wrong engine is 

considered to be applying a false label. 

(c) If you cause someone to commit a 

prohibited act in paragraph (a) or (b) of 

this section, you are in violation of that 

prohibition. 

(d) Exemptions from these 

prohibitions are described in subparts C 

and D of this part and in the standardsetting part. 

(e) The standard-setting parts describe 

more requirements and prohibitions that 

apply to manufacturers (including 

importers) and others under this 

chapter. 

(f) The specification of prohibitions 

and penalties in this part does not limit 

the prohibitions and penalties described 

in the Clean Air Act. Additionally, a 

single act may trigger multiple 

violations under this section and the 

Act. We may pursue all available 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

remedies for those violations even if the 

regulation references only a single 

prohibited act in this section. 

(g) [Reserved] 

(h) The maximum penalty values 

listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section apply as of January 12, 2009. 

Maximum penalty values for earlier 

violations are published in 40 CFR part 

19. Maximum penalty limits may be 

adjusted after January 12, 2009 based on 

the Consumer Price Index. The specific 

regulatory provisions for changing the 

maximum penalties, published in 40 

CFR part 19, reference the applicable 

U.S. Code citation on which the 

prohibited action is based. The 

following table is shown here for 

informational purposes: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44593 

TABLE 1 OF § 1068.101—LEGAL CITATION FOR SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS FOR DETERMINING MAXIMUM PENALTY AMOUNTS

Part 1068 regulatory 

citation of prohibited 

action 

General description of prohibition 

U.S. Code citation for Clean Air Act authority 

(42 U.S.C. 7524) 

§ 1068.101(a)(1) ...... Introduction into U.S. commerce of an uncertified source .................................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1) and (a)(4). 

§ 1068.101(a)(2) ...... Failure to provide information ................................................................................ 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2). 

§ 1068.101(a)(3) ...... Denying access to facilities ................................................................................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(2). 

§ 1068.101(b)(1) ...... Tampering with emission controls by a manufacturer or dealer ........................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). 

Tampering with emission controls by someone other than a manufacturer or 

dealer.

§ 1068.101(b)(2) ...... Sale or use of a defeat device .............................................................................. 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). 

§ 1068.101(b)(3) ...... Mobile use of a stationary engine ......................................................................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1) and (a)(4). 

§ 1068.101(b)(4) ...... Noncompetitive use of uncertified engines/equipment that is exempted for competition.42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1) and (a)(4). 

§ 1068.101(b)(5) ...... Importation of an uncertified source ...................................................................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1) and (a)(4). 

§ 1068.101(b)(6) ...... Recall and warranty ............................................................................................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(4). 

§ 1068.101(b)(7) ...... Removing labels .................................................................................................... 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). 

299. Section 1068.103 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1068.103 What are the provisions related 

to the duration and applicability of 

certificates of conformity? 

(a) Engines/equipment covered by a 

certificate of conformity are limited to 

those that are produced during the 

period specified in the certificate and 

conform to the specifications described 

in the certificate and the associated 

application for certification. For the 

purposes of this paragraph (a), 

specifications includes any conditions 

or limitations identified by the 

manufacturer or EPA, but does not 

include any information provided in the 

application that is not relevant to a 

demonstration of compliance with 

applicable regulations. For example, if 

the application for certification specifies 

certain engine configurations, the 

certificate does not cover any 

configurations that are not specified. 

However, your certificate would not be 

conditioned upon your actual U.S.- 

directed production volumes matching 

the volumes you projected in your 

application. 

* * * * * 

300. Section 1068.105 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1068.105 What other provisions apply to 

me specifically if I manufacture equipment 

needing certified engines? 

* * * * * 

(a) Transitioning to new engine-based 

standards. If new engine-based emission 

standards apply in a given model year, 

your equipment in that calendar year 

must have engines that are certified to 

the new standards, except that you may 

continue to use up your normal 

inventory of earlier engines that were 

built before the date of the new or 

changed standards. (Note: This 

paragraph (a) does not apply in the case 

of new remanufacturing standards.) For 

example, if your normal inventory 

practice is to keep on hand a one-month 

supply of engines based on your 

upcoming production schedules, and a 

new tier of standards starts to apply for 

the 2015 model year, you may order 

engines consistent with your normal 

inventory requirements late in the 

engine manufacturer’s 2014 model year 

and install those engines in your 

equipment, regardless of the date of 

installation. Also, if your model year 

starts before the end of the calendar year 

preceding new standards, you may use 

engines from the previous model year 

for those units you produce before 

January 1 of the year that new standards 

apply. If emission standards for the 

engine do not change in a given model 

year, you may continue to install 

engines from the previous model year 

without restriction (or any earlier model 

year for which the same standards 

apply). You may not circumvent the 

provisions of § 1068.101(a)(1) by 

stockpiling engines that were built 

before new or changed standards take 

effect. Note that this allowance does not 

apply for equipment subject to 

equipment-based standards. See 40 CFR 

1060.601 for similar provisions that 

apply for equipment subject to 

evaporative emission standards. 

* * * * * 

301. Section 1068.120 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1068.120 What requirements must I 

follow to rebuild engines? 

* * * * * 

(e) If the rebuilt engine remains 

installed or is reinstalled in the same 

piece of equipment, you must rebuild it 

to the original configuration, except as 

allowed by this paragraph (e). You may 

rebuild it to a different certified 

configuration of the same or later model 

year. You may also rebuild it to a 

certified configuration from an earlier 

model year as long as the earlier 

configuration is as clean or cleaner than 

the original configuration. For purposes 

of this paragraph (e), ‘‘as clean or 

cleaner’’ means one of the following: 

(1) For engines not certified with a 

Family Emission Limit for calculating 

credits for a particular pollutant, this 

means that the same emission standard 

applied for both model years. This 

includes supplemental standards such 

as Not-to-Exceed standards. 

(2) For engines certified with a Family 

Emission Limit for a particular 

pollutant, this means that the 

configuration to which the engine is 

being rebuilt has a Family Emission 

Limit for that pollutant that is at or 

below the standard that applied to the 

engine originally, and is at or below the 

original Family Emission Limit. 

* * * * * 

302. Section 1068.125 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1068.125 What happens if I violate the 

regulations? 

* * * * * 

(b) Administrative penalties. Instead 

of bringing a civil action, we may assess 

administrative penalties if the total is 

less than $295,000 against you 

individually. This maximum penalty 

may be greater if the Administrator and 

the Attorney General jointly determine 

that a greater administrative penalty 

assessment is appropriate, or if the limit 

is adjusted under 40 CFR part 19. No 

court may review this determination. 

Before we assess an administrative 

penalty, you may ask for a hearing 

(subject to 40 CFR part 22). The 

Administrator may compromise or 

remit, with or without conditions, any 

administrative penalty that may be 

imposed under this section. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

44594 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

303. Section 1068.215 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1068.215 What are the provisions for 

exempting manufacturer-owned engines/ 

equipment? 

(a) You are eligible for the exemption 

for manufacturer-owned engines/ 

equipment only if you are a certificate 

holder. Any engine for which you meet 

all applicable requirements under this 

section is exempt without request. 

(b) Engines/equipment may be exempt 

without a request if they are 

nonconforming engines/equipment 

under your ownership, possession, and 

control and you do not operate them for 

purposes other than to develop 

products, assess production methods, or 

promote your engines/equipment in the 

marketplace, or other purposes we 

approve. You may not loan, lease, sell, 

or use the engine/equipment to generate 

revenue, either by itself or for an engine 

installed in a piece of equipment, except 

as allowed by § 1068.201(i). Note that 

this paragraph (b) does not prevent the 

sale or shipment of a partially complete 

engine to a secondary engine 

manufacturer that will meet the 

requirements of this paragraph (b). See 

§ 1068.262 for provisions related to 

shipping partially complete engines to 

secondary engine manufacturers. 

* * * * * 

304. Section 1068.240 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(6), (c) 

introductory text, (d), (e), and (g)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1068.240 What are the provisions for 

exempting new replacement engines? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) You add a permanent label, 

consistent with § 1068.45, with your 

corporate name and trademark and the 

following additional information: 

(i) Add the following statement if the 

engine being replaced was not subject to 

any emission standards under this 

chapter: 

THIS ENGINE DOES NOT COMPLY 

WITH U.S. EPA EMISSION 

REQUIREMENTS. SELLING OR 

INSTALLING THIS ENGINE FOR ANY 

PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO REPLACE 

AN ENGINE BUILT BEFORE JANUARY 

1, [Insert appropriate year reflecting 

when the earliest tier of standards began 

to apply to engines of that size and type] 

MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 

LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY. 

(ii) Add the following statement if the 

engine being replaced was subject to 

emission standards: 

THIS ENGINE COMPLIES WITH U.S. 

EPA EMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

[Identify the appropriate emission 

standards (by model year, tier, or 

emission levels) for the replaced engine] 

ENGINES UNDER 40 CFR 1068.240. 

SELLING OR INSTALLING THIS 

ENGINE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER 

THAN TO REPLACE A [Identify the 

appropriate emission standards for the 

replaced engine, by model year(s), 

tier(s), or emission levels)] ENGINE 

MAY BE A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 

LAW SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTY. 

(c) Previous-tier replacement engines 

without tracking. You may produce a 

limited number of new replacement 

engines that are not from a currently 

certified engine family under the 

provisions of this paragraph (c). If you 

produce new engines under this 

paragraph (c) to replace engines subject 

to emission standards, the new 

replacement engine must be in a 

configuration identical in all material 

respects to the old engine and meet the 

requirements of § 1068.265. This would 

apply, for example, for engine 

configurations that were certified in an 

earlier model year but are no longer 

covered by a certificate of conformity. 

You must comply with the requirements 

of paragraph (b) of this section for any 

number of replacement engines you 

produce in excess of what we allow 

under this paragraph (c). The following 

provisions apply to engines exempted 

under this paragraph (c): 

* * * * * 

(d) Partially complete engines. The 

following requirements apply if you 

ship a partially complete replacement 

engine under paragraph (b) or (c) of this 

section: 

(1) Include installation instructions 

specifying how to complete the engine 

assembly such that the resulting engine 

conforms to the applicable certificate of 

conformity or the specifications of 

§ 1068.265. Where a partially complete 

engine can be built into multiple 

different configurations, you must be 

able to identify all the engine models 

and model years for which the partially 

complete engine may properly be used 

for replacement purposes. Your 

installation instructions must make 

clear how the final assembler can 

determine which configurations are 

appropriate for the engine they receive. 

(2) You must label the engine as 

follows: 

(i) If you have a reasonable basis to 

believe that the fully assembled engine 

will include the original emission 

control information label, you may add 

a removable label to the engine with 

your corporate name and trademark and 

the statement: ‘‘This replacement engine 

is exempt under 40 CFR 1068.240(b) [or 

40 CFR 1068.240(c) if appropriate].’’ 

This would generally apply if all the 

engine models that are compatible with 

the replacement engine were covered by 

a certificate of conformity and they were 

labeled in a position on the engine or 

equipment that is not included as part 

of the partially complete engine being 

shipped for replacement purposes. 

Removable labels must meet the 

requirements specified in § 1068.45. 

(ii) If you do not qualify for using a 

removable label in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section, you must add a permanent 

label in a readily visible location, 

though it may be obscured after 

installation in a piece of equipment. 

Include on the permanent label your 

corporate name and trademark, the 

engine’s part number (or other 

identifying information), and the 

statement: ‘‘This replacement engine is 

exempt under 40 CFR 1068.240(b) [or 40 

CFR 1068.240(c) if appropriate].’’ If 

there is not enough space for this 

statement, you may alternatively add: 

‘‘REPLACEMENT’’ or ‘‘SERVICE 

ENGINE’’. For purposes of this 

paragraph (d)(2), engine part numbers 

permanently stamped or engraved on 

the engine are considered to be included 

on the label. 

(e) Partially complete current-tier 

replacement engines. The provisions of 

paragraph (d) of this section apply for 

partially complete engines you produce 

from a current line of certified engines 

or vehicles, except that the appropriate 

regulatory cite on the label is 40 CFR 

1068.240(e). This applies for enginebased and equipment-based standards 

as follows: 

(1) Where engine-based standards 

apply, you may introduce into U.S. 

commerce short blocks or other partially 

complete engines from a currently 

certified engine family as replacement 

components for in-use equipment 

powered by engines you originally 

produced. You must be able to identify 

all the engine models and model years 

for which the partially complete engine 

may properly be used for replacement 

purposes. 

(2) Where equipment-based standards 

apply, you may introduce into U.S. 

commerce engines that are identical to 

engines covered by a current certificate 

of conformity by demonstrating 

compliance with currently applicable 

standards where the engines will be 

installed as replacement engines. These 

engines might be fully assembled, but 

we would consider them to be partially 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44595 

complete engines because they are not 

yet installed in the equipment. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Anyone installing or completing 

assembly of an exempted new 

replacement engine is deemed to be a 

manufacturer of a new engine with 

respect to the prohibitions of 

§ 1068.101(a)(1). This applies to all 

engines exempted under this section. 

* * * * * 

§ 1068.261—[Amended]

305. Section 1068.261 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (c)(5). 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

306. Section 1068.325 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1068.325 What are the temporary 

exemptions for imported engines/ 

equipment? 

* * * * * 

(g) You may import an engine if 

another company already has a 

certificate of conformity and will be 

modifying the engine to be in its final 

certified configuration or a final exempt 

configuration under the provisions of 

§ 1068.262. You may also import a 

partially complete engine by shipping it 

from one of your facilities to another 

under the provisions of § 1068.260(c). If 

you are importing a used engine that 

becomes new as a result of importation, 

you must meet all the requirements that 

apply to original engine manufacturers 

under § 1068.262. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

307. Section 1068.415 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1068.415 How do I test my engines/ 

equipment? 

* * * * * 

(c) Test at least two engines/ 

equipment in each 24-hour period 

(including void tests). However, if your 

projected U.S.-directed production 

volume is less than 7,500 engines/ 

equipment for the year, you may test a 

minimum of one per 24-hour period. If 

you request and justify it, we may 

approve a lower testing rate. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

308. Section 1068.501 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(5), (e), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1068.501 How do I report emissionrelated defects? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) You must track the information 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. You must assess this data at 

least every three months to evaluate 

whether you exceed the thresholds 

specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 

section. Where thresholds are based on 

a percentage of engines/equipment in 

the family, use actual U.S.-directed 

production volumes for the whole 

model year when they become available. 

Use projected production figures until 

the actual production figures become 

available. You are not required to collect 

additional information other than that 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section before reaching a threshold for 

an investigation specified in paragraph 

(e) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) Thresholds for conducting a defect 

investigation. You must begin a defect 

investigation based on the following 

number of engines/equipment that may 

have the defect: 

(1) For engines/equipment with 

maximum engine power at or below 560 

kW: 

(i) For families with annual 

production below 500 units: 50 or more 

engines/equipment. 

(ii) For families with annual 

production from 500 to 50,000 units: 

more than 10.0 percent of the total 

number of engines/equipment in the 

family. 

(iii) For families with annual 

production from 50,000 to 550,000 

units: more than the total number of 

engines/equipment represented by the 

following equation: 

Investigation threshold = 5,000 + 

(Production units ¥50,000) × 0.04 

(iv) For families with annual 

production above 550,000 units: 25,000 

or more engines/equipment. 

(2) For engines/equipment with 

maximum engine power greater than 

560 kW: 

(i) For families with annual 

production below 250 units: 25 or more 

engines/equipment. 

(ii) For families with annual 

production at or above 250 units: more 

than 10.0 percent of the total number of 

engines/equipment in the family. 

(f) Thresholds for filing a defect 

report. You must send a defect report 

based on the following number of 

engines/equipment that have the defect: 

(1) For engines/equipment with 

maximum engine power at or below 560 

kW: 

(i) For families with annual 

production below 1,000 units: 20 or 

more engines/equipment. 

(ii) For families with annual 

production from 1,000 to 50,000 units: 

more than 2.0 percent of the total 

number of engines/equipment in the 

family. 

(iii) For families with annual 

production from 50,000 to 550,000 

units: more than the total number of 

engines/equipment represented by the 

following equation: 

Reporting threshold = 1,000 + 

(Production units ¥50,000) × 0.01 

(iv) For families with annual 

production above 550,000 units: 6,000 

or more engines/equipment. 

(2) For engines/equipment with 

maximum engine power greater than 

560 kW: 

(i) For families with annual 

production below 150 units: 10 or more 

engines/equipment. 

(ii) For families with annual 

production from 150 to 750 units: 15 or 

more engines/equipment. 

(iii) For families with annual 

production above 750 units: more than 

2.0 percent of the total number of 

engines/equipment in the family. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–19187 Filed 8–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2