15938 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 92, 94, 1033, 1039, 1042, 

1065 and 1068 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0190; FRL–8285–5] 

RIN 2006–AM06 

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution 

From Locomotive Engines and Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines Less 

Than 30 Liters per Cylinder 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Locomotives and marine 

diesel engines are important 

contributors to our nation’s air pollution 

today. These sources are projected to 

continue to generate large amounts of 

particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) emissions that contribute 

to nonattainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone across the 

United States. The emissions of PM and 

ozone precursors from these engines are 

associated with serious public health 

problems including premature 

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, aggravation of 

existing asthma, acute respiratory 

symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and 

decreased lung function. In addition, 

emissions from locomotives and marine 

diesel engines are of particular concern, 

as diesel exhaust has been classified by 

EPA as a likely human carcinogen. 

EPA is proposing a comprehensive 

program to dramatically reduce 

emissions from locomotives and marine 

diesel engines. It would apply new 

exhaust emission standards and idle 

reduction requirements to diesel 

locomotives of all types—line-haul, 

switch, and passenger. It would also set 

new exhaust emission standards for all 

types of marine diesel engines below 30 

liters per cylinder displacement. These 

include marine propulsion engines used 

on vessels from recreational and small 

fishing boats to super-yachts, tugs and 

Great Lakes freighters, and marine 

auxiliary engines ranging from small 

gensets to large generators on oceangoing vessels. The proposed program 

includes a set of near-term emission 

standards for newly-built engines. These 

would phase in starting in 2009. The 

near-term program also contains more 

stringent emissions standards for 

existing locomotives. These would 

apply when the locomotive is 

remanufactured and would take effect as 

soon as certified remanufacture systems 

are available (as early as 2008), but no 

later than 2010 (2013 for Tier 2 

locomotives). We are requesting 

comment on an alternative under 

consideration that would apply a 

similar requirement to existing marine 

diesel engines when they are 

remanufactured. We are also proposing 

long-term emissions standards for 

newly-built locomotives and marine 

diesel engines based on the application 

of high-efficiency catalytic 

aftertreatment technology. These 

standards would phase in beginning in 

2015 for locomotives and 2014 for 

marine diesel engines. We estimate PM 

reductions of 90 percent and NOX

reductions of 80 percent from engines 

meeting these standards, compared to 

engines meeting the current standards. 

We project that by 2030, this program 

would reduce annual emissions of NOX

and PM by 765,000 and 28,000 tons, 

respectively. These reductions are 

estimated to annually prevent 1,500 

premature deaths, 170,000 work days 

lost, and 1,000,000 minor restrictedactivity days. The estimated annual 

monetized health benefits of this rule in 

2030 would be approximately $12 

billion, assuming a 3 percent discount 

rate (or $11 billion assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate). These estimates would 

be increased substantially if we were to 

adopt the remanufactured marine 

engine program concept. The annual 

cost of the proposed program in 2030 

would be significantly less, at 

approximately $600 million. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 2, 2007. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by OMB on or before 

May 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2003–0190, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741 

• 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, 

(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC, 

20004. 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–2003– 

0190. 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 VIII.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–EQ–OAR–2003–0190 Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15939 

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–

EQ–OAR–2003–0190 is (202) 566–1742. 

Hearing: Two hearings will be held, at 

10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 in 

Seattle, WA, and at 10 a.m. on 

Thursday, May 10, 2007 in Chicago, IL. 

For more information on these hearings 

or to request to speak, see section VIII.C. 

‘‘WILL THERE BE A PUBLIC 

HEARING.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Mueller, 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) 214–4275; fax number: (734) 214–

4816; e-mail address: 

Mueller.John@epa.gov, or Assessment 

and Standards Division Hotline; 

telephone number: (734) 214–4636. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Information 

♦ Does This Action Apply to Me? 

♦ Locomotive 

Entities potentially regulated by this 

action are those which manufacture, 

remanufacture and/or import 

locomotives and/or locomotive engines; 

and those which own and operate 

locomotives. Regulated categories and 

entities include: 

Category NAICS Code 1 Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ......................... 333618, 336510 ................................... Manufacturers, remanufacturers and importers of locomotives and locomotive 

engines. 

Industry ......................... 482110, 482111, 482112 ..................... Railroad owners and operators. 

Industry ......................... 488210 ................................................. Engine repair and maintenance. 

1 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 sections 

92.1, 92.801, 92.901, 92.1001, 1065.1, 

1068.1, 85.1601, 89.1, and the proposed 

regulations. If you have questions, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

♦ Marine 

This proposed action would affect 

companies and persons that 

manufacture, sell, or import into the 

United States new marine compressionignition engines, companies and 

persons that rebuild or maintain these 

engines, companies and persons that 

make vessels that use such engines, and 

the owners/operators of such vessels. 

Affected categories and entities include: 

Category NAICS Code 1 Examples of potentially affected entities 

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

Industry ......................... 33661 and 346611 ............................... Ship and boat building; ship building and repairing. 

Industry ......................... 811310 ................................................. Engine repair, remanufacture, and maintenance. 

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

Industry ......................... 336612 ................................................. Boat building (watercraft not built in shipyards and typically of the type suitable or intended for personal use). 

1 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 94.1, 

1065.1, 1068.1, and the proposed 

regulations. If you have questions, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

♦ Additional Information About This 

Rulemaking 

♦ Locomotive 

The current emission standards for 

locomotive engines were adopted by 

EPA in 1998 (see 63 FR 18978, April 16, 

1998). This notice of proposed 

rulemaking relies in part on information 

that was obtained for that rule, which 

can be found in Public Docket A–94–31. 

That docket is incorporated by reference 

into the docket for this action, OAR–

2003–0190. 

♦ Marine 

The current emission standards for 

new commercial marine diesel engines 

were adopted in 1999 and 2003 (see 64 

FR 73300, December 29, 1999 and 66 FR 

9746, February 28, 2003). The current 

emission standards for new recreational 

marine diesel engines were adopted in 

2002 (see 67 FR 68241, November 8, 

2002). The current emission standards 

for marine diesel engines below 37 kW 

(50 hp) were adopted in 1998 (see 63 FR 

56967, October 23, 1998). This notice of 

proposed rulemaking relies in part on 

information that was obtained for those 

rules, which can be found in Public 

Dockets A–96–40, A–97–50, A–98–01, 

A–2000–01, and A–2001–11. Those 

dockets are incorporated by reference 

into the docket for this action, OAR–

2003–0190. 

♦ Other Dockets 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

relies in part on information that was 

obtained for our recent highway diesel 

and nonroad diesel rulemakings, which 

can be found in Public Dockets A–99–

06 and A–2001–28 (see also OAR 2003–


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1 2Control of Air Pollution From New Motor 

Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle 

Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 

Requirements, 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001); 

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel, 69 FR 38958 

(June 29, 2004). 

3See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000), 66 FR 5001 

(January 18, 2001), and 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004) 

for the final rules regarding the light-duty Tier 2, 

clean highway diesel (2007 highway diesel) and 

clean nonroad diesel (nonroad Tier 4) programs, 

respectively. EPA has also recently promulgated a 

clean stationary diesel engine rule containing 

standards similar to those in the nonroad Tier 4 

rule. See 71 FR 39153. See also http://www.epa.gov/ 

diesel/ for information on all EPA programs that are 

part of the NCDC. 

4 In this NPRM, ‘‘marine diesel engine’’ refers to 

compression-ignition marine engines below 30 

liters per cylinder displacement unless otherwise 

indicated. Engines at or above 30 liters per cylinder 

are being addressed in separate EPA actions, 

including a planned rulemaking, participation on 

the U.S. delegation to the International Maritime 

Organization’s standard-setting work, and EPA’s 

new Clean Ports USA Initiative (http:// 

www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports/index.htm). 

5Marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl 

displacement are not included in this program. See 

Section III.E, below. 

0012).1 2 Those dockets are incorporated 

by reference into the docket for this 

action, OAR–2003–0190. 

Outline of This Preamble 

I. Overview 

A. What Is EPA Proposing? 

B. Why Is EPA Making This Proposal? 

II. Air Quality and Health Impacts 

A. Overview 

B. Public Health Impacts 

C. Other Environmental Effects 

D. Other Criteria Pollutants Affected by 

This NPRM 

E. Emissions From Locomotive and Marine 

Diesel Engines 

III. Emission Standards 

A. What Locomotives and Marine Engines 

Are Covered? 

B. Existing EPA Standards 

C. What Standards Are We Proposing? 

D. Are the Proposed Standards Feasible? 

E. What Are EPA’s Plans for Diesel Marine 

Engines on Large Ocean-Going Vessels? 

IV. Certification and Compliance Program 

A. Issues Common to Locomotives and 

Marine 

B. Compliance Issues Specific to 

Locomotives 

C. Compliance Issues Specific to Marine 

Engines 

V. Costs and Economic Impacts 

A. Engineering Costs 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

C. EIA 

VI. Benefits 

A. Overview 

B. Quantified Human Health and 

Environmental Effects of the Proposed 

Standards 

C. Monetized Benefits 

D. What Are the Significant Limitations of 

the Benefit-Cost Analysis? 

E. Benefit-Cost Analysis 

VII. Alternative Program Options 

A. Summary of Alternatives 

B. Summary of Results 

VIII. 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? 

IX. 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 

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority 

I. Overview 

This proposal 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 

highway and nonroad diesel engines.3

When fully implemented, these new 

programs would largely eliminate 

emissions of harmful pollutants from 

these sources. This Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) sets out the next 

step in this ambitious effort by 

addressing two additional diesel sectors 

that are major sources of air pollution 

nationwide: locomotive engines and 

marine diesel engines below 30 liters 

per cylinder displacement.4 This 

addresses all types of diesel 

locomotives— line-haul, switch, and 

passenger rail, and all types of marine 

diesel engines below 30 liters per 

cylinder displacement (hereafter 

collectively called ‘‘marine diesel 

engines.’’). These include marine 

propulsion engines used on vessels from 

recreational and small fishing boats to 

super-yachts, tugs and Great Lakes 

freighters, and marine auxiliary engines 

ranging from small gensets to large 

generators on ocean-going vessels.5

Emission levels for locomotive and 

marine diesel engines remain at high 

levels—comparable to the emissions 

standards for highway trucks in the 

early 1990s—and emit high level of 

pollutants that contribute to unhealthy 

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

in 2007 these engines account for about 

20 percent of mobile source NOX

emissions and 25 percent of mobile 

source diesel PM2.5 emissions. Absent 

new emissions standards, we expect 

overall emissions from these engines to 

remain relatively flat over the next 10 to 

15 years due to existing regulations such 

as lower fuel sulfur requirements and 

the phase-in of locomotive and marine 

diesel Tier 1 and Tier 2 engine 

standards but starting in about 2025 

emissions from these engines would 

begin to grow. Under today’s proposed 

program, by 2030, annual NOX

emissions from locomotive and marine 

diesel engines would be reduced by 

765,000 tons and PM2.5 and 28,000 tons. 

Without new controls, by 2030, these 

engines would become a large portion of 

the total mobile source emissions 

inventory constituting 35 percent of 

mobile source NOX emissions and 65 

percent of diesel PM emissions. 

We followed certain principles when 

developing the elements of this 

proposal. First, the program must 

achieve sizeable reductions in PM and 

NOX emissions as early as possible. 

Second, as we did in the 2007 highway 

diesel and clean nonroad diesel 

programs, we are considering engines 

and fuels together as a system to 

maximize emissions reductions in a 

highly cost-effective manner. The 

groundwork for this systems approach 

was laid in the 2004 nonroad diesel 

final rule which mandated that 

locomotive and marine diesel fuel 

comply with the 15 parts per million 

sulfur cap for ultra-low sulfur diesel 

fuel (ULSD) by 2012, in anticipation of 

this rulemaking (69 FR 38958, June 29, 

2004). The costs, benefits, and other 

impacts of the locomotive and marine 

diesel fuel regulation are covered in the 

2004 rulemaking and are not duplicated 

here. Lastly, we are proposing standards 

and implementation schedules that take 

full advantage of the efforts now being 

expended to develop advanced 

emissions control technologies for the 

highway and nonroad sectors. As 

discussed throughout this proposal, the 

proposed standards represent a feasible 

progression in the application of 

advanced technologies, providing a 

cost-effective program with very large 

public health and welfare benefits. 

The proposal consists of a three-part 

program. First, we are proposing more 

stringent standards for existing 

locomotives that would apply when 

they are remanufactured. The proposed 

remanufactured locomotive program 

would take effect as soon as certified 

remanufacture systems are available (as 

early as 2008), but no later than 2010 

(2013 for Tier 2 locomotives). We are 

also requesting comment on an 

alternative under consideration that 

would apply a similar requirement to 

existing marine diesel engines when 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15941 

they are remanufactured. Second, we 

are proposing a set of near-term 

emission standards, referred to as Tier 3, 

for newly-built locomotives and marine 

engines, that reflect the application of 

technologies to reduce engine-out PM 

and NOX. Third, we are proposing 

longer-term standards, referred to as 

Tier 4, that reflect the application of 

high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment 

technology enabled by the availability of 

ULSD. These standards phase in over 

time, beginning in 2014. We are also 

proposing provisions to eliminate 

emissions from unnecessary locomotive 

idling. 

Locomotives and marine diesel 

engines designed to these proposed 

standards would achieve PM reductions 

of 90 percent and NOX reductions of 80 

percent, compared to engines meeting 

the current Tier 2 standards. The 

proposed standards would also yield 

sizeable reductions in emissions of 

nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), 

carbon monoxide (CO), and hazardous 

compounds known as air toxics. Table 

I–1 summarizes the PM and NOX

emission reductions for the proposed 

standards compared to today’s (Tier 2) 

emission standards or, in the case of 

remanufactured locomotives, compared 

to the current standards for each tier of 

locomotives covered. 

TABLE I.–1.—REDUCTIONS FROM LEVELS OF EXISTING STANDARDS

Sector Proposed standards tier PM NOX

Locomotives .......................................... Remanufactured Tier 0 ...................................................................................... 60% 15–20% 

Remanufactured Tier 1 ...................................................................................... 50 

Remanufactured Tier 2 ...................................................................................... 50 

Tier 3 .................................................................................................................. 50 

Tier 4 .................................................................................................................. 90 80 

Marine Diesel Engines a ....................... Remanufactured Engines b ................................................................................. 25–60 up to 20 

Tier 3 .................................................................................................................. 50 20 

Tier 4 .................................................................................................................. 90 80 

aExisting and proposed standards vary by displacement and within power categories. Reductions indicated are typical. 

bThis proposal asks for comment on an alternative under consideration that would reduce emissions from existing marine diesel engines. See 

section VII.A(2). 

Combined, these reductions would 

result in substantial benefits to public 

health and welfare and to the 

environment. We project that by 2030 

this program would reduce annual 

emissions of NOX and PM by 765,000 

and 28,000 tons, respectively, and the 

magnitude of these reductions would 

continue to grow well beyond 2030. We 

estimate that these annual emission 

reductions would prevent 1,500 

premature mortalities in 2030. These 

annual emission reductions are also 

estimated to prevent 1,000,000 minor 

restricted-activity days, 170,000 work 

days lost, and other quantifiable 

benefits. All told, the estimated 

monetized health benefits of this rule in 

2030 would be approximately $12 

billion, assuming a 3 percent discount 

rate (or $11 billion assuming a 7 percent 

discount rate). The annual cost of the 

program in 2030 would be significantly 

less, at approximately $600 million. 

A. What Is EPA Proposing? 

This proposal is a further step in 

EPA’s ongoing program to control 

emissions from diesel engines, 

including those used in marine vessels 

and locomotives. EPA’s current 

standards for newly-built and 

remanufactured locomotives were 

adopted in 1998 and were implemented 

in three tiers (Tiers 0, 1, and 2) over 

2000 through 2005. The current program 

includes Tier 0 emission limits for 

existing locomotives originally 

manufactured in 1973 or later, that 

apply when they are remanufactured. 

The standards for marine diesel engines 

were adopted in 1998 for engines under 

37 kilowatts (kW), in 1999 for 

commercial marine engines, and in 2002 

for recreational marine engines. These 

various Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards 

phase in from 1999 through 2009, 

depending on engine size and 

application. The most stringent of these 

existing locomotive and marine diesel 

engine standards are similar in 

stringency to EPA’s nonroad Tier 2 

standards that are now in the process of 

being replaced by Tier 3 and 4 

standards. 

The major elements of the proposal 

are summarized below. We are also 

proposing revised testing, certification, 

and compliance provisions to better 

ensure emissions control in use. 

Detailed provisions and our 

justifications for them are discussed in 

sections III and IV and in the draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). 

Section VII of this preamble describes a 

number of alternatives that we 

considered in developing this proposal, 

including a more simplistic approach 

that would introduce aftertreatmentbased standards earlier. Our analysis 

shows that such an approach would 

result in higher emissions and fewer 

health and welfare benefits than we 

project will be realized from the 

program we are proposing today. After 

evaluating the alternatives, we believe 

that our proposed program provides the 

best opportunity for achieving timely 

and very substantial emissions 

reductions from locomotive and marine 

diesel engines. It best takes into account 

the need for appropriate lead time to 

develop and apply the technologies 

necessary to meet these emission 

standards, the goal of achieving very 

significant emissions reductions as early 

as possible, the interaction of 

requirements in this proposal with 

existing highway and nonroad diesel 

engine programs, and other legal and 

policy considerations. 

Overall, this comprehensive threepart approach to setting standards for 

locomotives and marine diesel engines 

would provide very large reductions in 

PM, NOX, and toxic compounds, both in 

the near-term (as early as 2008), and in 

the long-term. These reductions would 

be achieved in a manner that: (1) Is very 

cost-effective, (2) leverages technology 

developments in other diesel sectors, (3) 

aligns well with the clean diesel fuel 

requirements already being 

implemented, and (4) provides the lead 

time needed to deal with the significant 

engineering design workload that is 

involved. We are asking for comments 

on all aspects of the proposal, including 

standards levels and implementation 

dates, and on the alternatives discussed 

in this proposal. 

(1) Locomotive Emission Standards 

We are proposing stringent exhaust 

emissions standards for newly-built and 

remanufactured locomotives, furthering 

the initiative for cleaner locomotives 

started in 2004 with the establishment 

of the ULSD locomotive fuel program, 

and adding this important category of 

engines to the highway and nonroad 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

6We are not proposing any change to the current 

definition of a ‘‘new locomotive’’ in 40 CFR § 92.2. 

The terms ‘‘new locomotive’’, ‘‘new locomotive 

engine’’, ‘‘freshly manufactured locomotive’’, 

‘‘freshly manufactured locomotive engine’’, 

‘‘repower’’, ‘‘remanufacture’’, ‘‘remanufactured 

locomotive’’, and ‘‘remanufactured locomotive 

engine’’ all have formal definitions in 40 CFR 92.2. 

In this notice, the term ‘‘newly-built locomotive’’ is 

synonymous with ‘‘freshly manufactured 

locomotive’’. 

diesel applications already covered 

under EPA’s National Clean Diesel 

Campaign.6

In the Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) for this proposal 

(69 FR 39276, June 29, 2004), we 

suggested a program for comment that 

would bring about the introduction of 

high-efficiency exhaust aftertreatment to 

this sector in a single step. Although it 

has taken longer than expected to 

develop, the proposal we are issuing 

today is far more comprehensive than 

we envisioned in 2004. Informed by 

extensive analyses documented in the 

draft RIA and numerous discussions 

with stakeholders since then, this 

proposal goes significantly beyond that 

vision. It sets out standards for 

locomotives in three steps to more fully 

leverage the opportunities provided by 

both the already-established clean fuel 

programs, and the migration of clean 

diesel technology from the highway and 

nonroad sectors. It also addresses the 

large and long-lived existing locomotive 

fleet with stringent new emissions 

requirements at remanufacture starting 

in 2008. Finally, it sets new 

requirements for idle emissions control 

on newly-built and remanufactured 

locomotives. 

Briefly, for newly-built line-haul 

locomotives we are proposing a new 

Tier 3 PM standard of 0.10 grams per 

brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), 

based on improvements to existing 

engine designs. This standard would 

take effect in 2012. We are also 

proposing new Tier 4 standards of 0.03 

g/bhp-hr for PM and 1.3 g/bhp-hr for 

NOX, based on the evolution of highefficiency catalytic aftertreatment 

technologies now being developed and 

introduced in the highway diesel sector. 

The Tier 4 standards would take effect 

in 2015 and 2017 for PM and NOX, 

respectively. We are proposing that 

remanufactured Tier 2 locomotives meet 

a PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, based 

on the same engine design 

improvements as Tier 3 locomotives, 

and that remanufactured Tier 0 and Tier 

1 locomotives meet a 0.22 g/bhp-hr PM 

standard. We also propose that 

remanufactured Tier 0 locomotives meet 

a NOX standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr, the 

same level as current Tier 1 

locomotives, or 8.0 g/bhp-hr if the 

locomotive is not equipped with a 

separate loop intake air cooling system. 

Section III provides a detailed 

discussion of these proposed new 

standards, and section IV details 

improvements being proposed to the 

applicable test, certification, and 

compliance programs. 

In setting our original locomotive 

emission standards in 1998, the historic 

pattern of transitioning older line-haul 

locomotives to road- and yard-switcher 

service resulted in our making little 

distinction between line-haul and 

switch locomotives. Because of the 

increase in the size of new locomotives 

in recent years, that pattern cannot be 

sustained by the railroad industry, as 

today’s 4000+ hp (3000+ kW) 

locomotives are poorly suited for 

switcher duty. Furthermore, although 

there is still a fairly sizeable legacy fleet 

of older smaller line-haul locomotives 

that could find their way into the 

switcher fleet, essentially the only 

newly-built switchers put into service 

over the last two decades have been of 

radically different design, employing 

one to three smaller high-speed diesel 

engines designed for use in nonroad 

applications. In light of these trends, we 

are establishing new standards and 

special certification provisions for 

newly-built and remanufactured switch 

locomotives that take these trends into 

account. 

Locomotives spend a substantial 

amount of time idling, during which 

they emit harmful pollutants and 

consume fuel. Two ways that idling 

time can be reduced are through the use 

of automated systems to stop idling 

locomotive engines (restarting them on 

an as-needed basis), and through the use 

of small low-emitting auxiliary engines 

to provide essential accessory power. 

Both types of systems are installed in a 

number of U.S. locomotives today for 

various reasons, including to save fuel, 

to help meet current Tier 0 emissions 

standards, and to address complaints 

from railyard neighbors about noise and 

pollution from idling locomotives. 

We are proposing that idle control 

systems be required on all newly-built 

Tier 3 and Tier 4 locomotives. We also 

propose that they be installed on all 

existing locomotives that are subject to 

the proposed remanufactured engine 

standards, at the point of first 

remanufacture under the proposed 

standards, unless already equipped with 

idle controls. We are proposing that 

automated stop/start systems be 

required, but encourage the use of 

auxiliary power units by allowing their 

emission reduction to be factored into 

the certification test program as 

appropriate. 

Taken together, the proposed 

elements described above constitute a 

comprehensive program that would 

address the problems caused by 

locomotive emissions from both a nearterm and long-term perspective, and do 

so more completely than would have 

occurred under the concept described in 

the ANPRM. It would do this while 

providing for an orderly and costeffective implementation schedule for 

the railroads, builders, and 

remanufacturers. 

(2) Marine Engine Emission Standards 

We are also proposing emissions 

standards for newly-built marine diesel 

engines with displacements under 30 

liters per cylinder (referred to as 

Category 1 and 2, or C1 and C2, 

engines). This would include engines 

used in commercial, recreational, and 

auxiliary power applications, and those 

below 37 kW (50 hp) that were 

previously regulated separately in our 

nonroad diesel program. As with 

locomotives, our ANPRM described a 

one-step marine diesel program that 

would bring about the introduction of 

high-efficiency exhaust aftertreatment in 

this sector. Just as for locomotives, our 

subsequent extensive analyses 

(documented in the draft RIA) and 

numerous discussions with stakeholders 

since then have resulted in this proposal 

for standards in multiple steps, with the 

longer-term implementation of 

advanced technologies focused 

especially on the engines with the 

greatest potential for large PM and NOX

emission reductions. 

The proposed marine diesel engine 

standards include stringent enginebased Tier 3 standards for newly-built 

marine diesel engines that phase in 

beginning in 2009. These are followed 

by aftertreatment-based Tier 4 standards 

for engines above 600 kW (800 hp) that 

phase in beginning in 2014. The specific 

levels and implementation dates for the 

proposed Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards 

vary by engine sub-groupings. Although 

this results in a somewhat complicated 

array of emissions standards, it will 

ensure the most stringent standards 

feasible for each group of newly-built 

marine engines, and will help engine 

and vessel manufacturers to implement 

the program in a cost effective manner 

that also emphasizes early emission 

reductions. The proposed standards and 

implementation schedules, as well as 

their technological feasibility, are 

described in detail in section III of this 

preamble. 

We are also requesting comment on 

an alternative we are considering to 

address the considerable impact of 

emissions from large marine diesel 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15943 

7U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document 

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

Office of Research and Development, Washington 

DC. This document is available electronically at 

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

recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. 

8 Kinnee, E.J.; Touman, J.S.; Mason, R.; Thurman, 

J.; Beidler, A.; Bailey, C.; Cook, R. (2004) Allocation 

of onroad mobile emissions to road segments for air 

toxics modeling in an urban area. Transport. Res. 

Part D 9: 139–150. 

9State of California Air Resources Board. 

Roseville Rail Yard Study. Stationary Source 

Division, October 14, 2004. This document is 

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

diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm and State of 

California Air Resources Board. Diesel Particulate 

Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach, April 2006. This 

document is available electronically at: http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/ 

portstudy0406.pdf. 

engines installed in vessels currently in 

the fleet. We have in the past considered 

but not finalized a program to regulate 

such engines as ‘‘new’’ engines at the 

time of remanufacture, similar to the 

approach taken in the locomotive 

program. We are again considering such 

a program in the context of this 

rulemaking and are soliciting comments 

on this alternative. 

Briefly summarized, it would consist 

of two parts. In the first part, which 

could begin as early as 2008, vessel 

owners and rebuilders would be 

required to install a certified emissions 

control system when the engine is 

remanufactured, if such a system were 

available. Initially, we would expect the 

systems installed on remanufactured 

marine engines to be those certified for 

the remanufactured locomotive 

program, although this alternative 

would not limit the program to only 

those engines. Eventually manufacturers 

would be expected to provide systems 

for other large engines as well. In the 

second part, to take effect in 2013, 

marine diesel engines identified by EPA 

as high-sales volume engine models 

would have to meet specified emissions 

standards when remanufactured. The 

rebuilder or owner would be required to 

either use a system certified to meet the 

standards or, if no certified systems 

were available, to either retrofit an 

emission reduction technology for the 

engine that demonstrates at least a 25 

percent reduction or to repower (replace 

the engine with a new one). The 

alternative under consideration is 

described in more detail in section 

VII.A(2). We request comment on the 

elements of this alternative as well as 

other possible approaches to achieve 

this goal, with the view that EPA may 

adopt a remanufacture program in the 

final rule if appropriate. 

B. Why Is EPA Making This Proposal? 

(1) Locomotives and Marine Diesels 

Contribute to Serious Air Pollution 

Problems 

Locomotive and marine diesel engines 

subject to today’s proposal generate 

significant emissions of fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) that contribute to nonattainment 

of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for PM2.5 and ozone. NOX is 

a key precursor to ozone and secondary 

PM formation. These engines also emit 

hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, 

which are associated with serious 

adverse health effects. Emissions from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

also cause harm to public welfare, 

including contributing to visibility 

impairment and other harmful 

environmental impacts across the US. 

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 cost borne to society imposed 

as a result of the activity taking place) 

exceeds its private cost (the cost to those 

directly engaged in the activity). In this 

case, as described below and in Section 

II, emissions from locomotives and 

marine diesel engines and vessels 

impose public health and 

environmental costs on society. 

However, these added costs to society 

are not reflected in the costs of those 

using these engines and equipment. 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, it is necessary to give 

producers the signals for the social costs 

generated from the emissions. The 

standards EPA is proposing will 

accomplish this by mandating that 

locomotives and marine diesel engines 

reduce their emissions to a 

technologically feasible limit. In other 

words, with this proposed rule the costs 

of the transportation services produced 

by these engines and equipment will 

account for social costs more fully. 

Emissions from locomotive and 

marine diesel engines account for 

substantial portions of the country’s 

ambient PM2.5 and NOX levels. We 

estimate that today hese engines 

account for about 20 percent of mobile 

source NOX emissions and about 25 

percent of mobile source diesel PM 2.5

emissions. Under today’s proposed 

standards, by 2030, annual NOX

emissions from these diesel engines 

would be reduced by 765,000 tons and 

PM2.5 emissions by 28,000 tons, and 

those reductions would continue to 

grow beyond 2030 as fleet turnover to 

the clean engines is completed. 

EPA has already taken steps to bring 

emissions levels from light-duty and 

heavy-duty highway, and nonroad 

diesel vehicles and engines to very low 

levels over the next decade, as well as 

certain stationary diesel engines also 

subject to these standards, while the 

emission levels for locomotive and 

marine diesel engines remain at much 

higher levels—comparable to the 

emissions for highway trucks in the 

early 1990s. 

Both ozone and PM2.5 contribute to 

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.7 Recent 

studies are showing that populations 

living near large diesel emission sources 

such as major roadways,8 rail yards, and 

marine ports 9 are likely to experience 

greater diesel exhaust exposure levels 

than the overall U.S. population, putting 

them at greater health risks. We are 

currently studying the size of the U.S. 

population living near a sample of 

approximately 60 marine ports and rail 

yards, and will place the information in 

the docket upon completion prior to the 

final rule. 

Today millions of Americans 

continue to live in areas that do not 

meet existing air quality standards. 

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 October 2006 

there are approximately 157 million 

people living in 116 areas (461 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. With regard to PM2.5

nonattainment, EPA has recently 

finalized nonattainment designations 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

10Two examples of state and local actions are: 

California Air Resources Board (2006). Emission 

Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movements, 

(April 2006). Available electronically at 

www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/docs/ 

finalgmpplan090905.pdf; Connecticut Department 

of Environmental Protection. (2006). Connecticut’s 

Clean Diesel Plan, (January 2006). See http:// 

www.dep.state.ct.us/air2/diesel/index.htm for 

description of initiative. 11For example, see letter dated September 23, 

2006 from Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use 

Management to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson; 

September 7, 2006 letter from Executive Officer of 

the California Air Resources Board to Acting 

Assistant Administrator William L. Wehrum; 

August 9, 2006 letter from State and Territorial Air 

Pollution Program Administrators and Association 

of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (and other 

organizations) to Administrator Stephen L. Johnson; 

January 20, 2006 letter from Executive Director, 

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to Administrator 

Stephen L. Johnson; June 30, 2005 letter from 

Western Regional Air Partnership to Administrator 

Stephen L. Johnson. 

(70 FR 943, Jan 5, 2005), and as of 

October 2006 there are 88 million 

people living in 39 areas (which include 

all or part of 208 counties) that either do 

not meet the PM2.5 NAAQS or 

contribute to violations in other 

counties. These numbers do not include 

individuals living in areas that may fail 

to maintain or achieve the PM2.5

NAAQS in the future. 

In addition to public health impacts, 

there are public welfare and 

environmental impacts associated with 

ozone and PM2.5 emissions which are 

also serious. Specifically, 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. NOX and direct emissions of 

PM2.5 can contribute to the substantial 

impairment of visibility in many part of 

the U.S., where people live, work, and 

recreate, including national parks, 

wilderness areas, and mandatory class I 

federal areas. 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, NOX emissions from 

diesel engines contribute to the 

acidification, nitrification, and 

eutrophication of water bodies. 

While EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient ozone and 

PM2.5 levels, including 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 and NOX emission 

reductions resulting from the standards 

proposed in this action would assist 

states in attaining and maintaining the 

Ozone and the PM2.5 NAAQS near term 

and in the decades to come. 

In September 2006, EPA finalized 

revised PM2.5 NAAQS standards and 

over the next few years the Agency will 

undergo the process of designating areas 

that are not able to meet this new 

standard. EPA modeling, conducted as 

part of finalizing the revised NAAQS, 

projects that in 2015 up to 52 counties 

with 53 million people may violate 

either the daily, annual, or both 

standards for PM2.5 while an additional 

27 million people in 54 counties may 

live in areas that have air quality 

measurements within 10 percent of the 

revised NAAQS. Even in 2020 up to 48 

counties, with 54 million people, may 

still not be able to meet the revised 

PM2.5 NAAQS and an additional 25 

million people, living in 50 counties, 

are projected to have air quality 

measurements within 10 percent of the 

revised standards. The locomotive and 

marine diesel PM2.5 reductions resulting 

from this proposal will be needed by 

states to both attain and maintain the 

revised PM2.5 NAAQS. 

State and local governments are 

working to protect the health of their 

citizens and comply with requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). 

As part of this effort they recognize the 

need to secure additional major 

reductions in both diesel PM2.5 and NOX

emissions by undertaking numerous 

state level actions,10 while also seeking 

Agency action, including the setting of 

stringent new locomotive and marine 

diesel engine standards being proposed 

today.11 The emission reductions in this 

proposal will play a critical part in state 

efforts to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS through the next two decades. 

While the program we are proposing 

today will help many states and 

communities achieve cleaner air, for 

some areas, the reductions will not be 

large enough or early enough to assist 

them in meeting near term ozone and 

PM air quality goals. More can be done, 

beyond what we are proposing today, to 

address the emissions from locomotive 

and marine diesel engines. For example, 

as part of this proposal we are 

requesting comment on a concept to set 

emission standards for existing large 

marine diesel engines when they are 

remanufactured. Were we to finalize 

such a concept, it could provide 

substantial emission reductions, 

beginning in the next few years, from 

some of the large legacy fleets of dirtier 

diesel engines. 

At the time of our previous 

locomotive rulemaking, the State of 

California worked with the railroads 

operating in southern California to 

develop and implement a corollary 

program, ensuring that the cleanest 

technologies are expeditiously 

introduced in these areas with greatest 

air quality improvement needs. Today’s 

proposal includes provisions, such as 

streamlined switcher locomotive 

certification using clean nonroad 

engines, that are well-suited to 

encouraging early deployment of 

cleaner technologies through the 

development of similar programs. 

In addition to regulatory programs, 

the Agency has a number of voluntary 

programs that partner government, 

industry, and local communities 

together to help address challenging air 

quality problems. The EPA SmartWay 

program has initiatives to reduce 

unnecessary locomotive idling and to 

encourage the use of idle reduction 

technologies that can substantially 

reduce locomotive emissions while 

reducing fuel consumption. EPA’s 

National Clean Diesel Campaign, 

through its Clean Ports USA program, is 

working with port authorities, terminal 

operators, and trucking 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 voluntary retrofit 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. 

Together, these approaches can 

augment the regulations being proposed 

today helping 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 Technology Solutions 

Air pollution from locomotive and 

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.D, the development 

of these aftertreatment technologies for 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15945 

highway and nonroad diesel 

applications has advanced rapidly in 

recent years, so that very large emission 

reductions in PM and NOX (in excess of 

90 and 80 percent, respectively) can be 

achieved. 

High-efficiency PM control 

technologies are being broadly used in 

many parts of the world, and in 

particular to comply with EPA’s heavyduty truck standards now taking effect 

with the 2007 model year. These 

technologies are highly durable and 

robust in use, and have also proved 

extremely effective in reducing exhaust 

hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. However, 

as discussed in detail in section III.D, 

these emission control technologies are 

very sensitive to sulfur in the fuel. For 

the technology to be viable and capable 

of controlling an engine’s emissions 

over the long term, we believe it will 

require diesel fuel with sulfur content 

capped at the 15 ppm level. 

Control of NOX emissions from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

can also be achieved with highefficiency exhaust emission control 

technologies. Such technologies are 

expected to be used to meet the 

stringent NOX standards included in 

EPA’s heavy-duty highway diesel and 

nonroad Tier 4 programs, and 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 also sensitive to sulfur. 

Section III.D discusses additional 

engineering challenges in applying 

these technologies to newly-built 

locomotive and marine engines, as well 

as the development steps that we expect 

to be taken to resolve the challenges. 

With the lead time available and the 

assurance of ULSD for the locomotive 

and marine sectors in 2012, as provided 

by our 2004 final rule for nonroad 

engines and fuel, we are confident the 

proposed application of advanced 

technology to locomotives and marine 

diesels will proceed at a reasonable rate 

of progress and will result in systems 

capable of achieving the proposed 

standards on the proposed schedule. 

(3) Basis for Action Under the Clean Air 

Act 

Authority for the actions promulgated 

in this documents is granted to the 

Environmental Protections Agency 

(EPA) by sections 114, 203, 205, 206, 

207, 208, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the 

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522, 

7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7547, 7550 and 

7601(a)). 

EPA is promulgating emissions 

standards for new marine diesel engines 

pursuant to its authority under section 

213(a)(3) and (4) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). EPA is promulgating emission 

standards for new locomotives and new 

engines used in locomotives pursuant to 

its authority under section 213(a)(5) of 

the CAA. 

CAA section 213(a)(3) directs the 

Administrator to set NOX, VOCs, or 

carbon monoxide, standards for classes 

or categories of engines that contribute 

to ozone or carbon monoxide 

concentrations in more than one 

nonattainment area, like marine diesel 

engines. 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.’’

CAA section 213(a)(4), authorizes the 

Administrator to establish standards to 

control emissions of pollutants which 

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare,’’

where the Administrator determines, as 

it has done for emissions of PM, that 

nonroad engines as a whole contribute 

significantly to such air pollution. The 

Administrator may promulgate 

regulations that are deemed appropriate, 

taking into account costs, noise, safety, 

and energy factors, for classes or 

categories of new nonroad vehicles and 

engines which cause or contribute to 

such air pollution, like diesel marine 

engines. 

Finally, section 213(a)(5) directs EPA 

to adopt emission standards for new 

locomotives and new engines used in 

locomotives that achieve the ‘‘greatest 

degree of emissions reductions 

achievable through the use of 

technology that the Administrator 

determines will be available for such 

vehicles and engines, taking into 

account the cost of applying such 

technology within the available time 

period, the noise, energy, and safety 

factors associated with the applications 

of such technology.’’ Section 213(a)(5) 

does not require any review of the 

contribution of locomotive emissions to 

pollution, though EPA does provide 

such information in this proposal. As 

described in section III of this Preamble 

and in Chapter 4 of the draft RIA, EPA 

has evaluated the available information 

to determine the technology the will be 

available for locomotives and engines 

proposed to be subject to EPA 

standards. 

EPA is also acting under its authority 

to implement and enforce both the 

marine diesel emission standards and 

the locomotive emissions standards. 

Section 213(d) provides that the 

standards EPA adopts for both new 

locomotive and 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 

regulations implementing these 

sections. In addition, the locomotive 

and 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), 

(4), and (5) we believe the evidence 

provided in section III.D of this 

Preamble and in Chapter 4 of draft RIA 

indicates that the stringent emission 

standards proposed today for newlybuilt and remanufactured locomotive 

engines and newly-built 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 

also believe this may be the case for the 

alternative identified for existing marine 

engines in section VII.A(2) of this 

preamble. 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 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 marine diesel engines 

and locomotives 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 carbon monoxide (CO) 

concentrations in more than one area 

which has failed to attain the ozone and 

carbon monoxide NAAQS (64 FR 73300, 

December 29, 1999). EPA has also 

previously determined that it is 

appropriate to establish standards for 

PM from marine diesel engines under 

section 213(a)(4), and the additional 

information on diesel exhaust 

carcinogenicity noted above reinforces 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

12Nationwide locomotive and marine diesel 

engines comprise approximately 3 percent of the 

nonroad mobile sources hydrocarbon inventory. 

EPA National Air Quality and Emissions Trends 

Report 1999. March 2001, Document Number: EPA 

454/R–0–004. This document is available 

electronically at:http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/

aqtrnd99/. 

this finding. In addition, we have 

already found that emissions from 

nonroad engines as a whole 

significantly contribute to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public welfare due to regional 

haze and visibility impairment (67 FR 

68241, Nov. 8, 2002). We propose to 

find here, based on the information in 

section II of this preamble and Chapters 

2 and 3 of the draft RIA that emissions 

from the new marine diesel engines 

likewise contribute to regional haze and 

to visibility impairment. 

The PM and NOX emission reductions 

resulting from the standards proposed 

in this action would be important to 

states’ efforts in attaining and 

maintaining the Ozone and the PM2.5

NAAQS in the near term and in the 

decades to come. As noted above, the 

risk to human health and welfare would 

be significantly reduced by the 

standards proposed today. 

II. Air Quality and Health Impacts 

The locomotive and marine diesel 

engines subject to today’s proposal 

generate significant emissions of 

particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) that contribute to 

nonattainment of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

PM2.5 and ozone. These engines also 

emit hazardous air pollutants or air 

toxics which are associated with serious 

adverse health effects. Finally, 

emissions from locomotive and marine 

diesel engines cause harm to the public 

welfare, contribute to visibility 

impairment, and contribute to other 

harmful environmental impacts across 

the U.S. 

By 2030, the proposed standards are 

expected to reduce annual locomotive 

and marine diesel engine PM2.5

emissions by 28,000 tons; NOX

emissions by 765,000 tons; and volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions by 

42,000 tons as well as reductions in 

carbon monoxide (CO) and toxic 

compounds known as air toxics.12

We estimate that reductions of PM2.5, 

NOX, and VOC emissions from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

would produce nationwide air quality 

improvements. According to air quality 

modeling performed in conjunction 

with this proposed rule, if finalized, all 

39 current PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

would experience a decrease in their 

2020 and 2030 design values. Likewise 

all 116 mandatory class I federal areas 

would see improvements in their 

visibility. This rule would also result in 

substantial nationwide ozone benefits. 

The air quality modeling conducted for 

ozone estimates that in 2020 and 2030, 

114 of the current 116 ozone 

nonattainment areas would see 

improvements in ozone air quality as a 

result of this proposed rule. 

A. Overview 

From a public health perspective, we 

are concerned with locomotive and 

marine diesel engines’ contributions to 

atmospheric levels of particulate matter 

in general, diesel PM2.5 in particular, 

and various gaseous air toxics, and 

ozone. Today, locomotive and marine 

diesel engine emissions represent a 

substantial portion of the U.S. mobile 

source diesel PM2.5 and NOX emissions 

accounting for approximately 20 percent 

of mobile source NOX and 25 percent of 

mobile source diesel PM2.5. These 

proportions are even higher in some 

urban areas. Over time, the relative 

contribution of these diesel engines to 

air quality problems is expected to 

increase as the emission contribution 

from other mobile sources decreases and 

the usage of locomotives and marine 

vessels increases. By 2030, without 

further emissions controls beyond those 

already adopted for these engines, 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

nationally will emit more than 65 

percent of the total mobile source diesel 

PM2.5 emissions and 35 percent of the 

total mobile source NOX emissions. 

Based on the most recent data 

available for this rule, air quality 

problems continue to persist over a 

wide geographic area of the United 

States. As of October 2006 there are 

approximately 88 million people living 

in 39 designated areas (which include 

all or part of 208 counties) that either do 

not meet the current PM2.5 NAAQS or 

contribute to violations in other 

counties, and 157 million people living 

in 116 areas (which include all or part 

of 461 counties) designated as not in 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These numbers do not include 

the people living in areas where there is 

a significant future risk of failing to 

maintain or achieve either the PM2.5 or 

ozone NAAQS. Figure II–1 illustrates 

the widespread nature of these 

problems. This figure depicts counties 

which are currently designated 

nonattainment for either or both the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

It also shows the location of mandatory 

class I federal areas for visibility. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15947 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C The engine standards proposed in this 

rule would help reduce emissions of 

PM, NOX, VOCs, CO, and air toxics and 

their associated health and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.000</GPH>
15948 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

13See section II.B.(1)(d) and II.B.(2)(d) for a 

summary of the impact emission reductions from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines will have on 

air quality in current PM2.5 and ozone 

nonattainment areas. 

14U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document 

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

Office of Research and Development, Washington, 

DC. This document is available electronically at 

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

recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. 

15 Kinnee, E.J.; Touma, J.S.: Mason, R.; Thurman, 

J.; Beidler, A.; Bailey, C.; Cook, R. (2004) Allocation 

of onroad mobile emissions to road segments for air 

toxics modeling in an urban area. Transport. Res. 

Part D 9:139–150; also see Cohen, J.; Cook, R; 

Bailey, C.R.; Carr, E. (2005) Relationship between 

motor vehicle emissions of hazardous pollutants, 

roadway proximity, and ambient concentrations in 

Portland, Oregon. Environ. Modeling & Software 20: 

7–12. 

16Hand, R.; Di, P; Servin, A.; Hunsaker, L.; Suer, 

C. (2004) Roseville Rail Yard Study. California Air 

Resources Board. [Online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm] 

17 Di P.; Servin, A.; Rosenkranz, K.; Schwehr, B.; 

Tran, H. (April 2006); Diesel Particulate Matter 

Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach. State of California Air 

Resources Board. This document is available 

electronically at:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ 

marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf. 

18US EPA, Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December 

17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document 

is also available on the web at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

pmdesignations/. 

environmental effects. Emissions from 

locomotives and diesel marine engines 

contribute to PM and ozone 

concentrations in many, if not all, of 

these nonattainment areas.13 The engine 

standards being proposed today would 

become effective as early as 2008 

making the expected PM2.5, NOX, and 

VOC inventory reductions from this 

rulemaking critical to states as they seek 

to either attain or maintain the current 

PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS. 

Beyond the impact locomotive and 

marine diesel engines have on our 

nation’s ambient air quality the diesel 

exhaust emissions emanating from these 

engines are also of particular concern 

since diesel exhaust is classified as a 

likely human carcinogen.14 Many 

people spend a large portion of time in 

or near areas of concentrated locomotive 

or marine diesel emissions, near rail 

yards, marine ports, railways, and 

waterways. Recent studies show that 

populations living near large diesel 

emission sources such as major 

roadways,15 rail yards 16 and marine 

ports 17 are likely to experience greater 

diesel exhaust exposure levels than the 

overall U.S. population, putting them at 

a greater health risk. We are currently 

studying the size of the U.S. population 

living near a sample of approximately 

60 marine ports and rail yards, and will 

place that information in the docket 

upon completion prior to the final rule. 

The diesel PM2.5 reductions which 

occur as a result of this proposed rule 

would benefit the population near these 

sources and also assist state and local 

governments as they work to meet the 

NAAQS. 

In the following three sections we 

review important public health effects 

linked to pollutants emitted from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

first describing the human health effects 

and the current and expected future 

ambient levels of direct or indirectly 

caused pollution. Following the 

discussion of health effects, we will 

discuss the modeled air quality benefits 

which are estimated to result from 

regulating these engines. We also 

discuss a number of other welfare 

effects associated with emissions from 

diesel engines. These effects include 

visibility impairment, ecological and 

property damage caused by acid 

deposition, eutrophication and 

nitrification of surface waters, 

environmental threats posed by 

polycyclic organic matter (POM) 

deposition, and plant and crop damage 

from ozone. 

Finally, in section E we describe the 

locomotive and marine engine emission 

inventories for the primary pollutants 

affected by the proposal. We present 

current and projected future levels of 

emissions for the base case, including 

anticipated reductions from control 

programs already adopted by EPA and 

the States, but without the controls 

proposed today. Then we identify 

expected emission reductions from 

nonroad locomotive and marine diesel 

engines. These reductions would make 

important contributions to controlling 

the health and welfare problems 

associated with ambient PM and ozone 

levels and with diesel-related air toxics. 

Taken together, the materials in this 

section describe the need for tightening 

emission standards from both 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

and the air quality and public health 

benefits we expect as a result of this 

proposed rule. This section is not an 

exhaustive treatment of these issues. For 

a fuller understanding of the topics 

treated here, you should refer to the 

extended presentations in Chapter 2 of 

the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) accompanying this proposal. 

B. Public Health Impacts 

(1) Particulate Matter 

The proposed locomotive and marine 

engine standards would result in 

significant reductions of primary PM2.5

emissions from these sources. In 

addition, locomotive and marine diesel 

engines emit high levels of NOX which 

react in the atmosphere to form 

secondary PM2.5, ammonium nitrate. 

Locomotive and marine diesel engines 

also emit SO2 and HC which react in the 

atmosphere to form secondary PM2.5

composed of sulfates and organic 

carbonaceous PM2.5. This proposed rule 

would reduce both the directly emitted 

diesel PM and secondary PM emissions. 

(a) Background 

Particulate matter (PM) represents a 

broad class of chemically and physically 

diverse substances. It can be principally 

characterized as discrete particles that 

exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) 

phase spanning several orders of 

magnitude in size. PM is further 

described by breaking it down into size 

fractions. PM10 refers to particles 

generally less than or equal to 10 

micrometers (μm). PM2.5 refers to fine 

particles, those particles generally less 

than or equal to 2.5 μm in diameter. 

Inhalable (or ‘‘thoracic’’) coarse particles 

refer to those particles generally greater 

than 2.5 μm but less than or equal to 10 

μm in diameter. Ultrafine PM refers to 

particles less than 100 nanometers (0.1 

μm). Larger particles tend to be removed 

by the respiratory clearance 

mechanisms (e.g. coughing), whereas 

smaller particles are deposited deeper in 

the lungs. 

Fine particles are produced primarily 

by combustion processes and by 

transformations of gaseous emissions 

(e.g., SOX, NOX and VOCs) 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 through the 

atmosphere hundreds to thousands of 

kilometers. 

The primary PM2.5 NAAQS includes a 

short-term (24-hour) and a long-term 

(annual) standard. The 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS established by EPA set the 24- 

hour standard at a level of 65 μg/m3

based on the 98th percentile 

concentration averaged over three years. 

(This air quality statistic compared to 

the standard is referred to as the ‘‘design 

value.’’) The annual standard specifies 

an expected annual arithmetic mean not 

to exceed 15 μg/m3 averaged over three 

years. EPA has recently finalized PM2.5

nonattainment designations for the 1997 

standard (70 FR 943, Jan 5, 2005).18 All 

areas currently in nonattainment for 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15949 

19Final RIA PM NAAQS, Chapter 2: Defining the 

PM2.5 Air Quality Problem. October 17, 2006. 

20U.S. EPA (1996) Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter, EPA 600–P–95–001aF, EPA 600–

P–95–001bF. This document is available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR. 

21U.S. EPA (2004) Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document 

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

No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is 

available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR. 

22U.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. This document is available in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR. 

PM2.5 will be required to meet these 

1997 standards between 2009 and 2014. 

As can be seen in Figure II–1 ambient 

PM2.5 levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS are widespread throughout the 

country. As of October 2006 there were 

approximately 88 million people living 

in 39 areas (which include all or part of 

208 counties) that either do not meet the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or contribute to 

violations in other counties. These 

numbers do not include the people 

living in areas where there is a 

significant future risk of failing to 

maintain or achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has recently amended the 

NAAQS for PM2.5 (71 FR 61144, October 

17, 2006). The final rule, signed on 

September 21, 2006 and published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 

2006, addressed revisions to the primary 

and secondary NAAQS for PM to 

provide increased protection of public 

health and welfare, respectively. The 

level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was 

revised from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 to 

provide increased protection against 

health effects associated with short-term 

exposures to fine particles. The current 

form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was 

retained (e.g., based on the 98th 

percentile concentration averaged over 

three years). The level of the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS was retained at 15 μg/m3, 

continuing protection against health 

effects associated with long-term 

exposures. The current form of the 

annual PM2.5 standard was retained as 

an annual arithmetic mean averaged 

over three years, however, the following 

two aspects of the spatial averaging 

criteria were narrowed: (1) The annual 

mean concentration at each site shall be 

within 10 percent of the spatially 

averaged annual mean, and (2) the daily 

values for each monitoring site pair 

shall yield a correlation coefficient of at 

least 0.9 for each calendar quarter. 

With regard to the secondary PM2.5

standards, EPA has revised these 

standards to be identical in all respects 

to the revised primary standards. 

Specifically, EPA has revised the 

current 24-hour PM2.5 secondary 

standard by making it identical to the 

revised 24-hour PM2.5 primary standard 

and retained the annual PM2.5 secondary 

standard. This suite of secondary PM2.5

standards is intended to provide 

protection against PM-related public 

welfare effects, including visibility 

impairment, effects on vegetation and 

ecosystems, and material damage and 

soiling. 

The 2006 standards became effective 

on December 18, 2006. As a result of the 

2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA will designate 

new nonattainment areas in early 2010. 

The timeframe for areas attaining the 

2006 PM NAAQS will likely extend 

from 2015 to 2020. 

Table II–1 presents the number of 

counties in areas currently designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS as well as the number of 

additional counties which have 

monitored data that is violating the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In total more than 106 

million U.S. residents, in 257 counties 

are living in areas which either violate 

either the 1997 PM2.5 standard or the 

2006 PM2.5 standard. 

TABLE II–1.—FINE PARTICLE STANDARDS: CURRENT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AND OTHER VIOLATING COUNTIES

Number of 

counties Population a

1997 PM2.5 Standards: 39 areas currently designated ........................................................................................... 208 88,394,000 

2006 PM2.5 Standards: Counties with violating monitors b ...................................................................................... 49 18,198,676 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. 257 106,595,676 

aPopulation numbers are from 2000 census data. 

bThis table provides an estimate of the counties violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2003–05 air quality data. The areas designated as 

nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be based on 3 years of air quality data from later years. Also, the county numbers in the summary 

table includes only the counties with monitors violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The monitored county violations may be an underestimate of the 

number of counties and populations that will eventually be included in areas with multiple counties designated nonattainment. 

EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels 

and as a result of these programs, the 

number of areas that fail to achieve the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is expected to 

decrease. Even so, EPA modeling 

projects that in 2015, with all current 

controls, up to 52 counties with 53 

million population may not attain some 

combination of the current annual 

standard of 15 μg/m3 and the revised 

daily standard of 35 μg/m3, and that 

even in 2020 up to 48 counties with 54 

million population will still not be able 

to attain either the annual, daily, or both 

the annual and daily PM2.5 standards.19

This does not account for additional 

areas that have air quality 

measurements within 10 percent of the 

2006 PM2.5 standard. These areas, 

although not violating the standards, 

would also benefit from the additional 

reductions from this rule ensuring long 

term maintenance of the PM NAAQS. 

States have told EPA that they need 

the reductions this proposed rule would 

provide in order to meet and maintain 

both the current 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on the 

final rule designating and classifying 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas, most PM2.5

nonattainment areas will be required to 

attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

2009 to 2015 time frame, and then be 

required to maintain the NAAQS 

thereafter. The emissions standards for 

engine remanufacturing being proposed 

in this action would become effective as 

early as 2008, but no later than 2010, 

and states would rely on these expected 

PM2.5 reductions to help them to either 

attain or maintain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. In the long term, the emission 

reductions resulting from the proposed 

locomotive and marine diesel engine 

standards would be important to states 

efforts to attain and maintain the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

(b) Health Effects of PM2.5

Scientific studies show ambient PM is 

associated with a series of adverse 

health effects. These health effects are 

discussed in detail in the 2004 EPA 

Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria 

Document (PM AQCD) for PM, and the 

2005 PM Staff Paper.20 21 22 Further 

discussion of health effects associated 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15950 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

23 Dockery, DW; Pope, CA 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. 

24Pope Ca, III; Thun, MJ; Namboodiri, MM; 

Docery, DW; Evans, JS; Speizer, FE; Heath, CW. 

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. 

25Riekider, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R..; Herbst, 

M.C.; Bromberg, P.A.; Neas, L.; Williams, R.W.; 

Devlin, R.B. (2003) Particulate Matter Exposures in 

Cars is Associated with Cardiovascular Effects in 

Healthy Young Men. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 

169: 934–940. 

26Riediker, M.; Cascio, W.E.; Griggs, T.R.; et al. 

(2004) Particulate matter exposure in cars is 

associated with cardiovascular effects in healthy 

young men. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169: 934–

940. 

27 Van Vliet, P.; Knape, M.; de Hartog, J.; Janssen, 

N.; Harssema, H.; Brunekreef, B. (1997). Motor 

vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms 

in children living near freeways. Env. Research 74: 

122–132. 

28Brunekreef, B., Janssen, N.A.H.; de Hartog, J.; 

Harssema, H.; Knape, M.; van Vliet, P. (1997). Air 

pollution from truck traffic and lung function in 

children living near roadways. Epidemiology 

8:298–303. 

29 Kim, J.J.; Smorodinsky, S.; Lipsett, M.; Singer, 

B.C.; Hodgson, A.T.; Ostro, B. (2004). Traffic-related 

air pollution near busy roads: The East Bay 

children’s respiratory health study. Am. J. Respir. 

Crit. Care Med. 170: 520–526. 

30State of California Air Resources Board. 

Roseville Rail Yard Study. Stationary Source 

Division, October 14, 2004. This document is 

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

diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm and State of 

California Air Resources Board and State of 

California Air Resources Board. Diesel Particulate 

Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach, April 2006. This 

document is available electronically at: ftp:// 

ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/msprog/offroad/marinevess/

documents/portstudy0406.pdf. 

with PM can also be found in the draft 

RIA for this proposal. 

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

ambient PM include premature 

mortality, increased hospital 

admissions, heart and lung diseases, 

increased cough, adverse lowerrespiratory symptoms, decrements in 

lung function and changes in heart rate 

rhythm and other cardiac effects. 

Studies examining populations exposed 

to different levels of air pollution over 

a number of years, 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 cardio respiratory mortality.23

In addition, a reanalysis of the 

American Cancer Society Study shows 

an association between fine particle and 

sulfate concentrations and lung cancer 

mortality.24 The locomotive and marine 

diesel engines, covered in this proposal 

contribute to both acute and chronic 

PM2.5 exposures. Additional 

information on acute exposures is 

available in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA 

for this proposal. 

These health effects of PM2.5 have 

been further documented in local 

impact studies which have focused on 

health effects due to PM2.5 exposures 

measured on or near roadways.25 Taking 

account of all air pollution sources, 

including both spark-ignition (gasoline) 

and diesel powered vehicles, these latter 

studies indicate that exposure to PM2.5

emissions near roadways, dominated by 

mobile sources, are associated with 

potentially serious health effects. For 

instance, a recent study found 

associations between concentrations of 

cardiac risk factors in the blood of 

healthy young police officers and PM2.5

concentrations measured in vehicles.26

Also, a number of studies have shown 

associations between residential or 

school outdoor concentrations of some 

constituents of fine particles found in 

motor vehicle exhaust and adverse 

respiratory outcomes, including asthma 

prevalence in children who live near 

major roadways.27 28 29 Although the 

engines considered in this proposal 

differ with those in these studies with 

respect to their applications and fuel 

qualities, these studies provide an 

indication of the types of health effects 

that might be expected to be associated 

with personal exposure to PM2.5

emissions from large marine diesel and 

locomotive engines. The proposed 

controls would help to reduce exposure, 

and specifically exposure near marine 

ports and rail yard related PM2.5

sources. 

Recently, new studies 30 from the 

State of California provide evidence that 

PM2.5 emissions within marine ports 

and rail yards contribute significantly to 

elevated ambient concentrations near 

these sources. A substantial number of 

people experience exposure to 

locomotive and marine diesel engine 

emissions, raising potential health 

concerns. Additional information on 

marine port and rail yard emissions and 

ambient exposures can be found in 

section.B.3 of this preamble. 

(c) PM2.5 Air Quality Modeling Results 

Air quality modeling performed for 

this proposal shows that in 2020 and 

2030 all 39 current PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas would experience decreases in 

their PM2.5 design values. For areas with 

PM2.5 design values greater than 15 μg/ 

m3 the modeled future-year PM2.5 design 

values are expected to decrease on 

average by 0.06 μg/m3 in 2020 and 0.14 

μg/m3 in 2030. The maximum decrease 

for future-year PM2.5 design values in 

2020 would be 0.35 μg/m3 and 0.90 μg/ 

m3 in 2030. The reductions are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of 

the draft RIA. 

The geographic impact of the 

proposed locomotive and marine diesel 

engine controls in 2030 on PM2.5 design 

values (DV) in counties across the US, 

can be seen in Figure II–2. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15951 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.001</GPH>
15952 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

31U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C., EPA 600/R– 05/004aF–cF, 2006. This 

document may be accessed electronically at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ ttn/naaqs/standards/ ozone/s_o3_ 

cr_cd.html. 

32EPA’s review of the ozone NAAQS is underway 

and a proposal is scheduled for May 2007 with a 

final rule scheduled for February 2008. 

33A listing of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas is included in the draft RIA for this proposed 

rule. 

Figure II–2 illustrates that the greatest 

emission reductions in 2030 are 

projected to occur in Southern 

California where 3 counties would 

experience reductions in their PM2.5

design values of ¥0.50 to ¥0.90 μg/m3. 

The next level of emission reductions 

would occur among 13 counties 

geographically dispersed in the 

southeastern U.S., southern Illinois, and 

southern California. An additional 325 

counties spread across the U.S. would 

see a decrease in their PM2.5 DV ranging 

from ¥0.05 to ¥0.24 μg/m3. 

(d) PM Air Quality Modeling 

Methodology 

A national scale air quality modeling 

analysis was performed to estimate 

future year annual and daily PM2.5

concentrations and visibility for this 

proposed rule. To model the air quality 

benefits of this rule we used the 

Community-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

model. CMAQ simulates the numerous 

physical and chemical processes 

involved in the formation, transport, 

and destruction of ozone and particulate 

matter. In addition to the CMAQ model, 

the modeling platform includes the 

emissions, meteorology, and initial and 

boundary condition data which are 

inputs to this model. Consideration of 

the different processes that affect 

primary directly emitted and secondary 

PM at the regional scale in different 

locations is fundamental to 

understanding and assessing the effects 

of pollution control measures that affect 

PM, ozone and deposition of pollutants 

to the surface. A complete description of 

the CAMQ model and methodology 

employed to develop the future year 

impacts of this proposed rule are found 

in Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA. 

It should be noted that the emission 

control scenarios used in the air quality 

and benefits modeling are slightly 

different than the emission control 

program being proposed. The 

differences reflect further refinements of 

the regulatory program since we 

performed the air quality modeling for 

this rule. Emissions and air quality 

modeling decisions are made early in 

the analytical process. Chapter 3 of the 

draft RIA describes the changes in the 

inputs and resulting emission 

inventories between the preliminary 

assumptions used for the air quality 

modeling and the final proposed 

regulatory scenario. These refinements 

to the proposed program would not 

significantly change the results 

summarized here or our conclusions 

drawn from this analysis. 

(2) Ozone 

The proposed locomotive and marine 

engine standards are expected to result 

in significant reductions of NOX and 

VOC emissions. NOX and VOC 

contribute to the formation of groundlevel ozone pollution or smog. People in 

many areas across the U.S. continue to 

be exposed to unhealthy levels of 

ambient ozone. 

(a) Background 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

formed by the reaction of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the 

atmosphere in the presence of heat and 

sunlight. These two 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.31 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 would occur on a single hightemperature day. Ozone also can be 

transported from pollution sources into 

areas hundreds of miles upwind, 

resulting in elevated ozone levels even 

in areas with low local VOC or NOX

emissions. 

The highest levels of ozone are 

produced when both VOC and NOX

emissions are present in significant 

quantities on clear summer days. 

Relatively small amounts of NOX enable 

ozone to form rapidly when VOC levels 

are relatively high, but ozone 

production is quickly limited by 

removal of the NOX. Under these 

conditions NOX reductions are highly 

effective in reducing ozone while VOC 

reductions have little effect. Such 

conditions are called ‘‘NOX-limited.’’

Because the contribution of VOC 

emissions from biogenic (natural) 

sources to local ambient ozone 

concentrations can be significant, even 

some areas where man-made VOC 

emissions are relatively low can be 

NOX-limited. 

When NOX levels are relatively high 

and VOC levels relatively low, NOX

forms inorganic nitrates (i.e., particles) 

but relatively little ozone. Such 

conditions are called ‘‘VOC-limited.’’

Under these conditions, VOC reductions 

are effective in reducing ozone, but NOX

reductions can actually increase local 

ozone under certain circumstances. 

Even in VOC-limited urban areas, NOX

reductions are not expected to increase 

ozone levels if the NOX reductions are 

sufficiently large. 

Rural areas are usually NOX-limited, 

due to the relatively large amounts of 

biogenic VOC emissions in many rural 

areas. Urban areas can be either VOC- or 

NOX-limited, or a mixture of both, in 

which ozone levels exhibit moderate 

sensitivity to changes in either 

pollutant. 

Ozone concentrations in an area also 

can be lowered by the reaction of nitric 

oxide with ozone, forming nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2); as the air moves 

downwind and the cycle continues, the 

NO2 forms additional ozone. The 

importance of this reaction depends, in 

part, on the relative concentrations of 

NOX, VOC, and ozone, all of which 

change with time and location. 

The current ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has an 

8-hour averaging time.32 The 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, established by EPA in 

1997, is based on well-documented 

science demonstrating that more people 

were experiencing adverse health effects 

at lower levels of exertion, over longer 

periods, and at lower ozone 

concentrations than addressed by the 

previous one-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

current ozone NAAQS addresses ozone 

exposures of concern for the general 

population and populations most at 

risk, including children active outdoors, 

outdoor workers, and individuals with 

pre-existing respiratory disease, such as 

asthma. The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 

met at an ambient air quality monitoring 

site when the average of the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ozone concentration over three 

years is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm. 

Ozone concentrations exceeding the 

level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occur 

over wide geographic areas, including 

most of the nation’s major population 

centers.33 As of October 2006 there are 

approximately 157 million people living 

in 116 areas (which include all or part 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15953 

34Technical Support Document for the Final 

Clean Air Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling. 

This document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–

OAR–2003–0190. 

35The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area will have to attain before 

June 15, 2021. 

36U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C., EPA 600/R–05/004aF–cF, 2006. This 

document may be accessed electronically at:http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/ 

s_o3_cr_cd.html. 

37U.S. EPA (1996) Review of National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Assessment of 

Scientific and Technical Information. OAQPS Staff 

Paper First Draft. EPA–452/R–96–007. This 

document is available electronically at: 

http:www.epa.gov/ ttn/naaqs/ standards/ ozone/ 

s_o3_ cr_sp. html. 38U.S. EPA (2006) Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Policy 

Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

Information. OAQPS Staff Paper Second Draft. 

EPA–452/D–05–002. This document is available 

electronically at: http:www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ 

standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html. 

of 461 counties) designated as not in 

attainment with the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. These numbers do not include 

the people living in areas where there is 

a future risk of failing to maintain or 

achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient ozone 

levels. These control programs are 

described in section I.B.(1) of this 

preamble. As a result of these programs, 

the number of areas that fail to meet the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future is 

expected to decrease. 

Based on recent ozone modeling 

performed for the CAIR analysis,34

which does not include any additional 

local ozone precursor controls, we 

estimate that in 2010, 24 million people 

are projected to live in 37 Eastern 

counties exceeding the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. An additional 61 million 

people are projected to live in 148 

Eastern counties expected to be within 

10 percent of violating the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in 2010. 

States with 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas will be 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 (69 FR 

23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas will be 

required to attain the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame 

and then be required to maintain the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS thereafter.35 We 

expect many of the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas will need to adopt 

additional emission reduction programs. 

The expected NOX and VOC reductions 

from the standards proposed in this 

action would be important to states as 

they seek to either attain or maintain the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

(b) Health Effects of Ozone 

The health and welfare effects of 

ozone are well documented and are 

assessed in EPA’s 2006 ozone Air 

Quality Criteria Document (ozone 

AQCD) and EPA staff papers. 36 37 38

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, and 

breathing may 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 a doctor’s 

attention and/or the use of additional 

medication. 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 include children, the 

elderly, and individuals with 

respiratory disease such as asthma. 

There is also suggestive evidence that 

certain people may have greater genetic 

susceptibility. People can also have 

heightened vulnerability to ozone due to 

greater exposures (e.g., children and 

outdoor workers). 

The recent ozone AQCD also 

examined relevant new scientific 

information which has emerged in the 

past decade, including the impact of 

ozone exposure on such health effect 

indicators 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. In addition to 

supporting and building further on 

conclusions from the 1996 AQCD, the 

2006 AQCD included new information 

on the health effects of ozone. 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. 

EPA typically quantifies ozone-related 

health impacts in its regulatory impact 

analyses (RIAs) when possible. In the 

analysis of past air quality regulations, 

ozone-related benefits have included 

morbidity endpoints and welfare effects 

such as damage to commercial crops. 

EPA has not recently included a 

separate and additive mortality effect for 

ozone, independent of the effect 

associated with fine particulate matter. 

For a number of reasons, including (1) 

advice from the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) Health and Ecological Effects 

Subcommittee (HEES) that EPA 

consider the plausibility and viability of 

including an estimate of premature 

mortality associated with short-term 

ozone exposure in its benefits analyses 

and (2) conclusions regarding the 

scientific support for such relationships 

in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality Criteria for 

Ozone and Related Photochemical 

Oxidants (the CD), EPA is in the process 

of determining how to appropriately 

characterize ozone-related mortality 

benefits within the context of benefits 

analyses for air quality regulations. As 

part of this process, we are seeking 

advice from the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) regarding how the 

ozone-mortality literature should be 

used to quantify the reduction in 

premature mortality due to diminished 

exposure to ozone, the amount of life 

expectancy to be added and the 

monetary value of this increased life 

expectancy in the context of health 

benefits analyses associated with 

regulatory assessments. In addition, the 

Agency has sought advice on 

characterizing and communicating the 

uncertainty associated with each of 

these aspects in health benefit analyses. 

Since the NAS effort is not expected 

to conclude until 2008, the agency is 

currently deliberating how best to 

characterize ozone-related mortality 

benefits in its rulemaking analyses in 

the interim. For the analysis of the 

proposed locomotive and marine 

standards, we do not quantify an ozone 

mortality benefit. So that we do not 

provide an incomplete picture of all of 

the benefits associated with reductions 

in emissions of ozone precursors, we 

have chosen not to include an estimate 

of total ozone benefits in the proposed 

RIA. By omitting ozone benefits in this 

proposal, we acknowledge that this 

analysis underestimates the benefits 

associated with the proposed standards. 

For more information regarding the 

quantified benefits included in this 

analysis, please refer to Chapter 6 of this 

RIA. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15954 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Air Quality Modeling Results for 

Ozone 

This proposed rule would result in 

substantial nationwide ozone benefits. 

The air quality modeling conducted for 

ozone as part of this proposed 

rulemaking projects that in 2020 and 

2030, 114 of the current 116 ozone 

nonattainment areas would see 

improvements in ozone air quality as a 

result of this proposed rule. 

Results from the air quality modeling 

conducted for this rulemaking indicates 

that the average and populationweighted average concentrations over 

all U.S. counties would experience 

broad improvement in ozone air quality. 

The decrease in average ozone 

concentration in current nonattainment 

counties shows that the proposed rule 

would help bring these counties into 

attainment. The decrease in average 

ozone concentration for counties below 

the standard, but within ten percent, 

shows that the proposed rule would also 

help those counties to maintain the 

standard. All of these metrics show a 

decrease in 2020 and a larger decrease 

in 2030, indicating in four different 

ways the overall improvement in ozone 

air quality. For example, in 

nonattainment counties, on a 

population-weighted basis, the 8-hour 

ozone design value would decrease by 

0.29 ppb in 2020 and 0.87 ppb in 2030. 

The impact of the proposed 

reductions has also been analyzed with 

respect to those areas that have the 

highest design values at or above 85 ppb 

in 2030. We project there would be 27 

U.S. counties with design values at or 

above 85 ppb in 2030. After 

implementation of this proposed action, 

we project that 3 of these 27 counties 

would drop below 85 ppb. Further, 17 

of the 27 counties would be at least 10 

percent closer to a design value of less 

than 85 ppb, and on average all 27 

counties would be about 30 percent 

closer to a design value of less than 85 

ppb. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15955 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C Figure II–3 shows those U.S. counties 

in 2030 which are projected to 

experience a change in their ozone 

design values as a result of this 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.002</GPH>
15956 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

39NOX reductions can at certain times and in 

some areas cause ozone levels to increase. Such 

‘‘disbenefits’’ are predicted in our modeling for this 

proposed rule. For a discussion of the phenomenon 

see the draft RIA Chapter 2.2. In spite of this 

disbenefit, the air quality modeling we conducted 

makes clear that the overall effect of this proposed 

rule is positive with 456 counties experiencing a 

decrease in both their 2020 and 2030 ozone design 

value. 

40U.S. EPA (2006) National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

nata1999. 

41U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document 

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

Office of Research and Development, Washington, 

DC. Pp 1–1, 1–2. This document is available 

proposed rule. The most significant 

decreases, equal or greater than ¥2.0 

ppb, would occur in 7 counties across 

the U.S. including: Grant (¥2.1 ppb) 

and Lafayette (¥2.0 ppb) Counties in 

Louisiana; Montgomery (¥2.0 ppb), 

Galveston (¥2.0 ppb), and Jefferson 

(¥2.0 ppb) Counties in Texas; Warren 

County (¥2.9 ppb) in Mississippi; and 

Santa Barbara County (¥2.7 ppb) in 

California. One hundred eighty-seven 

(187) counties would see annual ozone 

design value reductions from ¥1.0 to 

¥1.9 ppb while an estimated 217 

additional counties would see annual 

design value reductions from ¥0.5 to 

¥0.9 ppb. Note that 5 counties 

including: Suffolk (+1.5 ppb) and 

Hampton (+0.8 ppb) Counties in 

Virginia; Cook County (+0.7 ppb) in 

Illinois; Lake County (+0.2 ppb) in 

Indiana; and San Bernardino County 

(+0.1 ppb) in California are projected to 

experience an increase in ozone design 

values because of the NOX disbenefit 

that occurs under certain conditions.39

It is expected that future local and 

national controls that decrease VOC, 

CO, and regional ozone will mitigate 

any localized disbenefits. 

EPA’s review of the ozone NAAQS is 

currently underway and a proposed 

decision in this review is scheduled for 

May 2007 with a final rule scheduled 

for February 2008. If the ozone NAAQS 

is revised then new nonattainment areas 

could be designated. While EPA is not 

relying on it for purposes of justifying 

this proposal, the emission reductions 

from this rulemaking would also be 

helpful to states if there is an ozone 

NAAQS revision. 

(d) Ozone Air Quality Modeling 

Methodology 

A national scale air quality modeling 

analysis was performed to estimate 

future year ozone concentrations for this 

proposed rule. To model the air quality 

benefits of this rule we used the 

Community-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

model. CMAQ simulates the numerous 

physical and chemical processes 

involved in the formation, transport, 

and destruction of ozone and particulate 

matter. In addition to the CMAQ model, 

the modeling platform includes the 

emissions, meteorology, and initial and 

boundary condition data which are 

inputs to this model. Consideration of 

the different processes that affect 

primary directly emitted and secondary 

PM at the regional scale in different 

locations is fundamental to 

understanding and assessing the effects 

of pollution control measures that affect 

PM, ozone and deposition of pollutants 

to the surface. A complete description of 

the CAMQ model and methodology 

employed to develop the future year 

impacts of this proposed rule are found 

in Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA. 

It should be noted that the emission 

control scenarios used in the air quality 

and benefits modeling are slightly 

different than the emission control 

program being proposed. The 

differences reflect further refinements of 

the regulatory program since we 

performed the air quality modeling for 

this rule. Emissions and air quality 

modeling decisions are made early in 

the analytical process. Chapter 3 of the 

draft RIA describes the changes in the 

inputs and resulting emission 

inventories between the preliminary 

assumptions used for the air quality 

modeling and the final proposed 

regulatory scenario. These refinements 

to the proposed program would not 

significantly change the results 

summarized here or our conclusions 

drawn from this analysis. 

(3) Air Toxics 

People experience elevated risk of 

cancer and other noncancer health 

effects from exposure to air toxics. 

Mobile sources are responsible for a 

significant portion of this risk. 

According to the National Air Toxic 

Assessment (NATA) for 1999, mobile 

sources were responsible for 44 percent 

of outdoor toxic emissions and almost 

50 percent of the cancer risk. Benzene 

is the largest contributor to cancer risk 

of all 133 pollutants quantitatively 

assessed in the 1999 NATA. Mobile 

sources were responsible for 68 percent 

of benzene emissions in 1999. Although 

the 1999 NATA did not quantify cancer 

risks associated with exposure to this 

diesel exhaust, EPA has concluded that 

diesel exhaust ranks with the other air 

toxic substances that the national-scale 

assessment suggests pose the greatest 

relative risk. 

According to 1999 NATA, nearly the 

entire U.S. population was exposed to 

an average level of air toxics that has the 

potential for adverse respiratory health 

effects (noncancer). Mobile sources were 

responsible for 74 percent of the 

noncancer (respiratory) risk from 

outdoor air toxics in 1999. The majority 

of this risk was from acrolein, and 

formaldehyde also contributed to the 

risk of respiratory health effects. 

Although not included in NATA’s 

estimates of noncancer risk, PM from 

gasoline and diesel mobile sources 

contribute significantly to the health 

effects associated with ambient PM. 

It should be noted that the NATA 

modeling framework has a number of 

limitations which prevent its use as the 

sole basis for setting regulatory 

standards. These limitations and 

uncertainties are discussed on the 1999 

NATA Web site.40 Even so, this 

modeling framework is very useful in 

identifying air toxic pollutants and 

sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the 

decision making process. 

The following section provides a brief 

overview of air toxics which are 

associated with nonroad engines, 

including locomotive and marine diesel 

engines, and provides a discussion of 

the health risks associated with each air 

toxic. 

(a) Diesel Exhaust (DE) 

Locomotive and marine diesel engine 

emissions include diesel exhaust (DE), a 

complex mixture comprised of carbon 

dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds, 

sulfur compounds and numerous lowmolecular-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 

diesel exhaust consists of fine particles 

(<2.5 μm), including a subgroup with a 

large number of ultrafine particles (<0.1 

μm). These particles have large surface 

area which makes them an excellent 

medium for adsorbing organics and 

their small size makes them highly 

respirable and able to reach the deep 

lung. Many of the organic compounds 

present on the particles and in the gases 

are individually known to have 

mutagenic and carcinogenic properties. 

Diesel exhaust varies significantly in 

chemical composition and particle sizes 

between different engine types (heavyduty, 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 

locomotive and marine diesel engines.41


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15957 

electronically at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. 

42U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document 

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

Office of Research and Development, Washington, 

DC. This document is available electronically at 

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

recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060. 

43U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document 

for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/6008–90/057F 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, 

DC. 9–11. 

44Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998) Diesel 

exposure and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9(1):84–

91. 

45Lipsett, M: Campleman, S; (1999) Occupational 

exposure to diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a metaanalysis. Am J Public Health 80(7): 1009–1017. 

46 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. 

47Heinrich, 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. 

48Mauderly, JL; Jones, RK; Griffith, WC; et al. 

(1987) Diesel exhaust is a pulmonary carcinogen in 

rats exposed chronically by inhalation. Fundam. 

Appl. Toxicol. 9:208–221. 

49Nikula, KJ; Snipes, MB; Barr, EB; 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. 

50 Kilburn (2000). See HAD Chapter 5–7. 

51Hart, JE, Laden F; Schenker, M.B.; and 

Garshick, E. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary 

Disease Mortality in Diesel-Exposed Railroad 

Workers; Environmental Health Perspective July 

2006: 1013–1016. 

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. 

(i) Diesel Exhaust: Potential Cancer 

Effect of Diesel Exhaust 

In EPA’s 2002 Diesel Health 

Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),42

diesel exhaust was classified as likely to 

be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation 

at 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, including railroad workers. 

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 diesel exhaust, of 

1.33 to 1.47. These meta-analyses 

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.43 44 45

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 

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. 

Retrospective health studies of 

railroad workers have played an 

important part in determining that 

diesel exhaust is a likely human 

carcinogen. Key evidence of the diesel 

exhaust exposure linkage to lung cancer 

comes from two retrospective casecontrol studies of railroad workers 

which are discussed at length in the 

Diesel HAD. 

(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects 

Noncancer health effects of acute and 

chronic exposure to diesel exhaust 

emissions are also of concern to the 

Agency. EPA derived an RfC from 

consideration of four well-conducted 

chronic rat inhalation studies showing 

adverse pulmonary effects. 46 47 48 49 The 

RfC is 5 μg/m 3 for diesel exhaust as 

measured by diesel PM. 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 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). 

Diesel exhaust has been shown to 

cause serious noncancer effects in 

occupational exposure studies. One 

study of railroad workers and 

electricians, cited in the Diesel HAD,50

found that exposure to diesel exhaust 

resulted in neurobehavioral 

impairments in one or more areas 

including reaction time, balance, blink 

reflex latency, verbal recall, and color 

vision confusion indices. Pulmonary 

function tests also showed that 10 of the 

16 workers had airway obstruction and 

another group of 10 of 16 workers had 

chronic bronchitis, chest pain, tightness, 

and hyperactive airways. Finally, a 

variety of studies have been published 

subsequent to the completion of the 

Diesel HAD. One such study, published 

in 2006 51 found that railroad engineers 

and conductors with diesel exhaust 

exposure from operating trains had an 

increased incidence of chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 

mortality. The odds of COPD mortality 

increased with years on the job so that 

those who had worked more than 16 

years as an engineer or conductor after 

1959 had an increased risk of 1.61 (95% 

confidence interval, 1.12—2.30). EPA is 

assessing the significance of this study 

within the context of the broader 

literature. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15958 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

52 Diesel HAD Page 2–110, 8–12; Woskie, SR; 

Smith, TJ; Hammond, SK: et al. (1988a) Estimation 

of the DE exposures of railroad workers: II. National 

and historical exposures. Am J Ind Med 12:381–

394. 

53Hand, R.; Pingkuan, D.; Servin, A.; Hunsaker, 

L.; Suer, C. (2004) Roseville rail yard study. 

California Air Resources Board. [Online at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/ diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm]. 

54 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. California Air Resources Board. 

[Online at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/

marinevess/marinevess.htm]. 

55Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of 

the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by 

(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 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (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, of which 

diesel PM is a constituent. 

(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. 

1. Occupational Exposures 

Occupational exposures to diesel 

exhaust from mobile sources, including 

locomotive engines and 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 resulting 

in a wide range of exposures from 2 to 

1,280 μg/m 3 for a variety of 

occupations. Studies have shown that 

miners and railroad workers typically 

have higher diesel exposure levels than 

other occupational groups studied, 

including firefighters, truck dock 

workers, and truck drivers (both short 

and long haul).52 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 

locomotive and marine diesel engines. 

2. Elevated Concentrations and Ambient 

Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted 

Areas 

Regions immediately downwind of 

rail yards and marine ports may 

experience elevated ambient 

concentrations of directly-emitted PM2.5

from diesel engines. Due to the unique 

nature of rail yards and marine ports, 

emissions from a large number of diesel 

engines are concentrated in a small area. 

Furthermore, emissions occur at or near 

ground level, allowing emissions of 

diesel engines to reach nearby receptors 

without fully mixing with background 

air. 

A recent study conducted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

examined the air quality impacts of 

railroad operations at the J.R. Davis Rail 

Yard, the largest rail facility in the 

western United States. 53 The yard 

occupies 950 acres along a one-quarter 

mile wide and four mile long section of 

land in Roseville, CA. The study 

developed an emissions inventory for 

the facility for the year 2000 and 

modeled ambient concentrations of 

diesel PM using a well-accepted 

dispersion model (ISCST3). The study 

estimated substantially elevated 

concentrations in an area 5,000 meters 

from the facility, with higher 

concentrations closer to the rail yard. 

Using local meteorological data, annual 

average contributions from the rail yard 

to ambient diesel PM concentrations 

under prevailing wind conditions were 

1.74, 1.18, 0.80, and 0.25 μg/m 3 at 

receptors located 200, 500, 1000, and 

5000 meters from the yard, respectively. 

Several tens of thousands of people live 

within the area estimated to experience 

substantial increases in annual average 

ambient PM2.5 as a result of rail yard 

emissions. 

Another study from 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.54

Like the earlier rail yard study, the port 

study employed the ISCST3 dispersion 

model. Also using local meteorological 

data, 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/m3 of port-related 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. 

Overall, while these studies focus on 

only two large marine port and railroad 

facilities, they highlight the substantial 

contribution these facilities make to 

elevated ambient concentrations in 

populated areas. 

We have recently initiated a study to 

better understand the populations that 

are living near rail yards and marine 

ports nationally. As part of the study, a 

computer geographic information 

system (GIS) is being used to identify 

the locations and property boundaries of 

these facilities nationally, and to 

determine the size and demographic 

characteristics of the population living 

near these facilities. We anticipate that 

the results of this study will be 

complete in 2007 and we intend to add 

this report to the public docket. 

(a) Gaseous Air Toxics—Benzene, 1,3- 

butadiene, Formaldehyde, 

Acetaldehyde, Acrolein, POM, 

Naphthalene 

Locomotive and marine diesel engine 

exhaust emissions contribute to ambient 

levels of other air toxics known or 

suspected as human or animal 

carcinogens, or that have non-cancer 

health effects. These other compounds 

include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), and 

naphthalene. All of these compounds, 

except acetaldehyde, were identified as 

national or regional risk drivers in the 

1999 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment (NATA) and have 

significant inventory contributions from 

mobile sources. That is, for a significant 

portion of the population, these 

compounds pose a significant portion of 

the total cancer and noncancer risk from 

breathing outdoor air toxics. The 

reductions in locomotive and marine 

diesel engine emissions proposed in this 

rulemaking would help reduce exposure 

to these harmful substances. 

Air toxics can cause a variety of 

cancer and noncancer health effects. A 

number of the mobile source air toxic 

pollutants described in this section are 

known or likely to pose a cancer hazard 

in humans. Many of these compounds 

also cause adverse noncancer health 

effects resulting from chronic,55


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15959 

the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10 percent of the life span in 

humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 

years in typically used laboratory animal species). 56 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure to a 

substance spanning approximately 10 percent of the 

lifetime of an organism. 

57 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the 

oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or 

less. 

58U.S. EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information 

System File for Benzene. This material is available 

electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ 

0276.htm. 

59 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 

IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic 

risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some 

industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345–389, 1982. 

60 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; 

Henry, V.A. (1992) Synergistic action of the 

benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic 

stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage 

colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. 

Sci. 89:3691–3695. 

61Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and 

carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health 

Perspect. 82:193–197. 

62 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. 

Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 

3:541–554. 

63Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. 

Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, 

W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-Holland, L.P. Zhang, 

W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes (1996) 

Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily 

exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29:236–246. 

64U.S. EPA 2002 Toxicological Review of 

Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental 

Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS), Research and Development, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, 

DC. This material is available electronically at 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. 

65Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; 

Cohen, B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, 

S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; 

Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok, E.; Li, Y.; 

Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report 

115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in 

Workers Exposed to Benzene in China. 

66Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. 

Cohen, et al. (2002). Hematological changes among 

Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene 

exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275–285. 

67Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et 

al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to 

Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776. 

68Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene 

metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human 

exposure from Urban Air. Research Reports Health 

Effect Inst. Report No.113. 

69U.S. EPA. 2002. Health Assessment of 1,3- 

Butadiene. Office of Research and Development, 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No. 

EPA600–P–98–001F. This document is available 

electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/ 

buta-sup.pdf. 

70U.S. EPA. 2002. ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3- 

butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0)’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS), Research and Development, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, 

DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. 

71Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996) 

Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats 

and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 

32:1–10. 

72U.S. EPA (1987). Assessment of Health Risks to 

Garment Workers and Certain Home Residents from 

Exposure to Formaldehyde, Office of Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances, April 1987. 

73Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; 

Hayes, R.B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from 

lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers 

in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National 

Cancer Institute 95: 1615–1623. 

74Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; 

Hayes, R.B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid 

cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. 

American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117–1130. 

75Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort 

of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an 

update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193–200. 

76U.S. EPA. 1988. Integrated Risk Information 

System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0290.htm. 

77U.S. EPA. 1988. Integrated Risk Information 

System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0290.htm. 

subchronic,56 or acute 57 inhalation 

exposures. These include neurological, 

cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and 

respiratory effects as well as effects on 

the immune and reproductive systems. 

Benzene: The EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information (IRIS) database lists 

benzene as a known human carcinogen 

(causing leukemia) by all routes of 

exposure, and that exposure is 

associated with additional health 

effects, including genetic changes in 

both humans and animals and increased 

proliferation of bone marrow cells in 

mice.58 59 60 EPA states in its IRIS 

database that data indicate a causal 

relationship between benzene exposure 

and acute lymphocytic leukemia and 

suggests a relationship between benzene 

exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic 

leukemia and chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia. A number of adverse 

noncancer health effects including 

blood disorders, such as preleukemia 

and aplastic anemia, have also been 

associated with long-term exposure to 

benzene.61 62 The most sensitive 

noncancer effect observed in humans, 

based on current data, is the depression 

of the absolute lymphocyte count in 

blood.63 64 In addition, recent work, 

including studies sponsored by the 

Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides 

evidence that biochemical responses are 

occurring at lower levels of benzene 

exposure than previously 

known.65 66 67 68 EPA’s IRIS program has 

not yet evaluated these new data. 

1,3-Butadiene: EPA has characterized 

1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to 

humans by inhalation.69 70 The specific 

mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced 

carcinogenesis are unknown. However, 

it is virtually certain that the 

carcinogenic effects are mediated by 

genotoxic metabolites of 1,3-butadiene. 

Animal data suggest that females may be 

more sensitive than males for cancer 

effects; while there are insufficient data 

in humans from which to draw 

conclusions about sensitive 

subpopulations. 1,3-Butadiene also 

causes a variety of reproductive and 

developmental effects in mice; no 

human data on these effects are 

available. The most sensitive effect was 

ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime 

bioassay of female mice.71

Formaldehyde: Since 1987, EPA has 

classified formaldehyde as a probable 

human carcinogen based on evidence in 

humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and 

monkeys.72 EPA is currently reviewing 

recently published epidemiological 

data. For instance, recently released 

research conducted by the National 

Cancer Institute (NCI) found an 

increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer 

and lymphohematopoietic malignancies 

such as leukemia among workers 

exposed to formaldehyde.73 74 NCI is 

currently performing an update of these 

studies. A recent National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) study of garment workers also 

found increased risk of death due to 

leukemia among workers exposed to 

formaldehyde.75 Based on the 

developments of the last decade, in 

2004, the working group of the 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC) concluded that 

formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans 

(Group 1), on the basis of sufficient 

evidence in humans and sufficient 

evidence in experimental animals—a 

higher classification than previous IARC 

evaluations. 

Formaldehyde exposure also causes a 

range of noncancer health effects, 

including irritation of the eyes (tearing 

of the eyes and increased blinking) and 

mucous membranes. 

Acetaldehyde: Acetaldehyde is 

classified in EPA’s IRIS database as a 

probable human carcinogen, based on 

nasal tumors in rats, and is considered 

toxic by the inhalation, oral, and 

intravenous routes.76 The primary acute 

effect of exposure to acetaldehyde 

vapors is irritation of the eyes, skin, and 

respiratory tract.77 The agency is 

currently conducting a reassessment of 

the health hazards from inhalation 

exposure to acetaldehyde. 

Acrolein: Acrolein is intensely 

irritating to humans when inhaled, with 

acute exposure resulting in upper 

respiratory tract irritation and 

congestion. EPA determined in 2003 

using the 1999 draft cancer guidelines 

that the human carcinogenic potential of 

acrolein could not be determined 

because the available data were 

inadequate. No information was 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15960 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

78U.S. EPA. 2003. Integrated Risk Information 

System File of Acrolein. Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0364.htm. 

79Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W–Y.; et al. (2002) 

Effect of transplacental exposure to environmental 

pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic 

population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 201–205. 

80Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; 

Tang, D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; 

Camann, D.; Kinney, P. (2006) Effect of prenatal 

exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 

years of life among inner-city children. Environ 

Health Perspect 114: 1287–1292. 

81U.S. EPA. 2004. Toxicological Review of 

Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation 

Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Integrated Risk Information System, Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0436.htm. 

82Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. 

(2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS 

Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of 

Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub2.epa.gov/

ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=86019. 

83 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of 

the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. 

Vol. 82. Lyon, France. 

84U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of 

Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Integrated Risk Information System, Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/ 

subst/0436.htm. 

85National Research Council, 1993. Protecting 

Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. 

National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze 

in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC. This document is 

available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR–2005–0036. This 

book can be viewed on the National Academy Press 

Web site at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/ 

html/. 

86See discussion in U.S. EPA, National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; 

Proposed Rule; January 17, 2006, Vol 71 p 2676. 

This information is available electronically at 

http://epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day17/a177.pdf. 

87U.S. EPA (2004). Air Quality Criteria for 

Particulate Matter (Oct 2004), Volume I Document 

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

No. EPA600/P–99/002bF. This document is 

available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR–2005–0036. 

88U.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. This document is available in 

Docket EPA-HQ-OAR–2005–0036. 

available on the carcinogenic effects of 

acrolein in humans and the animal data 

provided inadequate evidence of 

carcinogenicity.78

Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM): 

POM is generally defined as a large class 

of organic compounds which have 

multiple benzene rings and a boiling 

point greater than 100 degrees Celsius. 

Many of the compounds included in the 

class of compounds known as POM are 

classified by EPA as probable human 

carcinogens based on animal data. One 

of these compounds, naphthalene, is 

discussed separately below. 

Recent studies have found that 

maternal exposures to PAHs in a 

population of pregnant women were 

associated with several adverse birth 

outcomes, including low birth weight 

and reduced length at birth, as well as 

impaired cognitive development at age 

three.79 80 EPA has not yet evaluated 

these recent studies. 

Naphthalene: Naphthalene is found in 

small quantities in gasoline and diesel 

fuels but is primarily a product of 

combustion. EPA recently released an 

external review draft of a reassessment 

of the inhalation carcinogenicity of 

naphthalene.81 The draft reassessment 

recently completed external peer 

review.82 Based on external peer review 

comments, additional analyses are being 

considered. California EPA has released 

a new risk assessment for naphthalene, 

and the IARC has reevaluated 

naphthalene and re-classified it as 

Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to 

humans.83 Naphthalene also causes a 

number of chronic non-cancer effects in 

animals, including abnormal cell 

changes and growth in respiratory and 

nasal tissues.84

In addition to reducing substantial 

amounts of NOX and PM2.5 emissions 

from locomotive and marine diesel 

engines, the standards being proposed 

today would also reduce air toxics 

emitted from these engines. This will 

help mitigate some of the adverse health 

effects associated with operation of 

these engines. 

C. Other Environmental Effects 

There is a number of public welfare 

effects associated with the presence of 

ozone and PM2.5 in the ambient air. In 

this section we discuss the impact of 

PM2.5 on visibility and materials and the 

impact of ozone on plants, including 

trees, agronomic crops and urban 

ornamentals. 

(1) Visibility 

Visibility can be defined as the degree 

to which the atmosphere is transparent 

to visible light.85 Visibility impairment 

manifests in two principal ways: as 

local visibility impairment and as 

regional haze.86 Local visibility 

impairment may take the form of a 

localized plume, a band or layer of 

discoloration appearing well above the 

terrain as a result of complex local 

meteorological conditions. 

Alternatively, local visibility 

impairment may manifest as an urban 

haze, sometimes referred to as a ‘‘brown 

cloud’’. This urban haze is largely 

caused by emissions from multiple 

sources in the urban areas and is not 

typically attributable to only one nearby 

source or to long-range transport. The 

second type of visibility impairment, 

regional haze, usually results from 

multiple pollution sources spread over 

a large geographic region. Regional haze 

can impair visibility in large regions and 

across states. 

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 protecting visibility in these 

areas. For more information on visibility 

see the final 2004 PM AQCD as well as 

the 2005 PM Staff Paper.87 88


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15961 

89These 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. 

90As mentioned above, the EPA has recently 

proposed to amend the PM NAAQS (71 FR 2620, 

Jan. 17, 2006). The proposal would set the 

secondary NAAQS equal to the primary standards 

for both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. EPA also is taking 

comment on whether to set a separate PM2.5

standard, designed to address visibility (principally 

in urban areas), on potential levels for that standard 

within a range of 20 to 30 μg/m3, and on averaging 

times for the standard within a range of four to eight 

daylight hours. 

91US EPA, Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December 

17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document 

is also available on the Web at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

pmdesignations/. 

92US EPA. Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, 

1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999). 

Fine particles are the major cause of 

reduced visibility in parts of the United 

States. EPA is pursuing a two-part 

strategy to address visibility. First, to 

address the welfare effects of PM on 

visibility, EPA set secondary PM2.5

standards which would act in 

conjunction with the establishment of a 

regional haze program. In setting this 

secondary standard EPA 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).89 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.90

Locomotives and marine engines 

contribute to visibility concerns in these 

areas through their primary PM2.5

emissions and their NOX emissions 

which contribute to the formation of 

secondary PM2.5. 

Current Visibility Impairment 

Recently designated PM2.5

nonattainment areas indicate that, as of 

March 2, 2006, almost 90 million people 

live in nonattainment areas for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, at least these 

populations would likely be 

experiencing visibility impairment, as 

well as many thousands of individuals 

who travel to these areas. 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.91 92 The mandatory federal 

class I areas are listed in Chapter 2 of 

the draft RIA for this action. The areas 

that have design values above the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS are also listed in Chapter 

2 of the draft RIA for this action. 

Future Visibility Impairment 

Recent modeling for this proposed 

rule was used to project visibility 

conditions in the 116 mandatory class I 

federal areas across the U.S. in 2020 and 

2030 resulting from the proposed 

locomotive and marine diesel engine 

standards. The results suggest that 

improvement in visibility would occur 

in all class I federal areas although areas 

would continue to have annual average 

deciview levels above background in 

2020 and 2030. Table II–2 groups class 

I federal areas by regions and illustrates 

that regardless of geographic area, 

reductions in PM2.5 emissions from this 

rule would benefit visibility in each 

region of the U.S. in mandatory class I 

federal areas. 

TABLE II–2.—SUMMARY OF MODELED 2030 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN MANDATORY CLASS I FEDERAL AREAS

[Annual average deciview] 

Region 

Predicted 2030 

visibility baseline 

w/o rule rule 

Predicted 2030 

visibility with rule 

control 

Change in annual 

average deciview 

Eastern 

Southeast ............................................................................................................. 17.52 17.45 .07 

Northeast/Midwest ............................................................................................... 14.85 14.80 .05

Western 

Southwest ............................................................................................................ 9.36 9.32 .04 

West (CA–NV–UT) .............................................................................................. 9.99 9.92 .07 

Rocky Mountain ................................................................................................... 8.37 8.33 .04 

Northwest ............................................................................................................. 9.11 9.05 .06 

National Class I Area Average ............................................................................ 10.97 10.91 .06 

Notes: 

(a) Background visibility conditions differ by regions: Eastern natural background is 9.5 deciview (or visual range of 150 kilometers) and the 

West natural background is 5.3 deciview (or visual range of 230 kilometers). 

(b) The results average visibility conditions for mandatory Class I Federal areas in the regions. 

(c) The results illustrate the type of visibility improvements for the primary control options. The proposal differs based on updated information; 

however, we believe that the net results would approximate future PM emissions. 

(2) Plant and Ecosystem Effects of 

Ozone 

Ozone contributes to many 

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 

lower 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15962 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

93 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great 

Waters, Third Report to Congress, June 2000, EPA–

453/R–00–005. This document can be found in 

Docket No. OAR–2002–0030, Document No. OAR–

2002–0030–0025. It is also available at 

www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gr8water/3rdrpt/ 

obtain.html. 

94Bricker, Suzanne B., et al. National Estuarine 

Eutrophication Assessment, Effects of Nutrient 

Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries, National 

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, September, 1999. 

95U.S EPA (2005). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and 

Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. This 

document is available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–

2005–0036. 

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 Criteria 

Document presents more detailed 

information on ozone effects on 

vegetation and ecosystems. 

As discussed above, locomotive and 

marine diesel engine emissions of NOX

contribute to ozone and therefore the 

proposed NOX standards will help 

reduce crop damage and stress on 

vegetation from ozone. 

(3) Acid Deposition 

Acid deposition, or acid rain as it is 

commonly known, occurs when NOX

and SO2 react in the atmosphere with 

water, oxygen and oxidants to form 

various acidic compounds that later fall 

to earth in the form of precipitation or 

dry deposition of acidic particles. It 

contributes to damage of trees at high 

elevations and in extreme cases may 

cause lakes and streams to become so 

acidic that they cannot support aquatic 

life. In addition, acid deposition 

accelerates the decay of building 

materials and paints, including 

irreplaceable buildings, statues, and 

sculptures that are part of our nation’s 

cultural heritage. 

The proposed NOX standards would 

help reduce acid deposition, thereby 

helping to reduce acidity levels in lakes 

and streams throughout the country and 

helping accelerate the recovery of 

acidified lakes and streams and the 

revival of ecosystems adversely affected 

by acid deposition. Reduced acid 

deposition levels will also help reduce 

stress on forests, thereby accelerating 

reforestation efforts and improving 

timber production. Deterioration of 

historic buildings and monuments, 

vehicles, and other structures exposed 

to acid rain and dry acid deposition also 

will be reduced, and the costs borne to 

prevent acid-related damage may also 

decline. While the reduction in nitrogen 

acid deposition will be roughly 

proportional to the reduction in NOX

emissions, the precise impact of this 

rule will differ across different areas. 

(4) Eutrophication and Nitrification 

The NOX standards proposed in this 

action will help reduce the airborne 

nitrogen deposition that contributes to 

eutrophication of watersheds, 

particularly in aquatic systems where 

atmospheric deposition of nitrogen 

represents a significant portion of total 

nitrogen loadings. 

Eutrophication is the accelerated 

production of organic matter, 

particularly algae, in a water body. This 

increased growth can cause numerous 

adverse ecological effects and economic 

impacts, including nuisance algal 

blooms, dieback of underwater plants 

due to reduced light penetration, and 

toxic plankton blooms. Algal and 

plankton blooms can also reduce the 

level of dissolved oxygen, which can 

adversely affect fish and shellfish 

populations. In recent decades, human 

activities have greatly accelerated 

nutrient impacts, such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus, causing excessive growth 

of algae and leading to degraded water 

quality and associated impairment of 

fresh water and estuarine resources for 

human uses.93

Severe and persistent eutrophication 

often directly impacts human activities. 

For example, losses in the nation’s 

fishery resources may be directly caused 

by fish kills associated with low 

dissolved oxygen and toxic blooms. 

Declines in tourism occur when low 

dissolved oxygen causes noxious smells 

and floating mats of algal blooms create 

unfavorable aesthetic conditions. Risks 

to human health increase when the 

toxins from algal blooms accumulate in 

edible fish and shellfish, and when 

toxins become airborne, causing 

respiratory problems due to inhalation. 

According to the NOAA report, more 

than half of the nation’s estuaries have 

moderate to high expressions of at least 

one of these symptoms ‘‘ an indication 

that eutrophication is well developed in 

more than half of U.S. estuaries.94

(5) Materials Damage and Soiling 

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.95 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. 

The PM2.5 standards proposed in this 

action will help reduce the airborne 

particles that contribute to materials 

damage and soiling. 

D. Other Criteria Pollutants Affected by 

This NPRM 

Locomotive and marine diesel engines 

account for about 1 percent of the 

mobile sources carbon monoxide (CO) 

inventory. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a 

colorless, odorless gas produced 

through the incomplete combustion of 

carbon-based fuels. The current primary 

NAAQS for CO are 35 ppm for the 1- 

hour average and 9 ppm for the 8-hour 

average. These values are not to be 

exceeded more than once per year. As 

of October 2006, there are 15.5 million 

people living in 6 areas (10 counties) 

that are designated as nonattainment for 

CO. 

Carbon monoxide enters the 

bloodstream through the lungs, forming 

carboxyhemoglobin and reducing the 

delivery of oxygen to the body’s organs 

and tissues. The health threat from CO 

is most serious for those who suffer 

from cardiovascular disease, 

particularly those with angina or 

peripheral vascular disease. Healthy 

individuals also are affected, but only at 

higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated 

CO levels is associated with impairment 

of visual perception, work capacity, 

manual dexterity, learning ability and 

performance of complex tasks. Carbon 

monoxide also contributes to ozone 

nonattainment since carbon monoxide 

reacts photochemically in the 

atmosphere to form ozone. Additional 

information on CO related health effects 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15963 

96U.S. EPA (2000). Air Quality Criteria for Carbon 

Monoxide, EPA/600/P–99/001F. This document is 

available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0008. 

can be found in the Air Quality Criteria 

for Carbon Monoxide.96

E. Emissions From Locomotive and 

Marine Diesel Engines 

(1) Overview 

The engine standards being proposed 

in this rule would affect emissions of 

particulate matter (PM2.5), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and air toxics. 

Carbon monoxide is not specifically 

targeted in this proposal although the 

technologies applied to control these 

other pollutants are expected to also 

reduce CO emissions. 

Locomotive and marine diesel engine 

emissions are expected to continue to be 

a significant part of the mobile source 

emissions inventory both nationally and 

in ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

in the coming years. In the absence of 

new emissions standards, we expect 

overall emissions from these engines to 

decrease modestly over the next ten to 

fifteen years than remain relatively flat 

through 2025 due to existing regulations 

such as lower fuel sulfur requirements, 

the phase in of locomotive and marine 

diesel Tier 1 and Tier 2 engine 

standards, and the Tier 0 locomotive 

remanufacturing requirements. 

Beginning thereafter, emission 

inventories from these engines would 

once again begin increasing due to 

growth in the locomotive and marine 

sectors. Under today’s proposed 

standards, by 2030, annual NOX

emissions from these engines would be 

reduced by 765,000 tons, PM2.5

emissions by 28,000 tons, and VOC 

emissions by 42,000 tons. 

In this section we first present base 

case emissions inventory contributions 

for locomotive and marine diesel 

engines and other mobile sources 

assuming no further emission controls 

beyond those already in place. The 2001 

inventory numbers were developed and 

used as an input into our air quality 

modeling. Individual sub-sections 

which follow discuss PM2.5, NOX, and 

VOC pollutants, in terms of expected 

emission reductions associated with the 

proposed standards. The tables and 

figures illustrate the Agency’s analysis 

of current and future emissions 

contributions from locomotive and 

marine diesel engines. 

(2) Estimated Inventory Contribution 

Locomotive and marine diesel engine 

emissions contribute to nationwide PM, 

NOX, VOC, CO, and air toxics 

inventories. Our current baseline and 

future year estimates for NOX and PM2.5

inventories (50-state) are set out in 

Tables II–3 and II–4. Based on our 

analysis undertaken for this rulemaking, 

we estimate that in 2001 locomotives 

and marine diesel engines contributed 

almost 60,000 tons (18 percent) to the 

national mobile source diesel PM2.5

inventory and about 2.0 million tons (16 

percent) to the mobile source NOX

inventory. In 2030, absent the standards 

proposed today, these engines would 

contribute about 50,000 tons (65 

percent) to the mobile source diesel 

PM2.5 inventory and almost 1.6 million 

tons (35 percent) to the mobile source 

NOX inventory. 

The national locomotives and marine 

diesel engine PM2.5 and NOX

inventories in 2030 would be roughly 

twice as large as the combined PM2.5

and NOX inventories from on-highway 

diesel and land-based nonroad diesel 

engines. In absolute terms—locomotives 

and marine diesel engines, in 2030, 

would annually emit 22,000 more tons 

of PM2.5 and 890,000 more tons of NOX

than all highway and nonroad diesels 

combined. This occurs because EPA has 

already taken steps to bring engine 

emissions from both on-highway and 

nonroad diesels to near-zero levels, 

while locomotives and marine diesel 

engines continue to meet relatively 

modest emission requirements. Table II–

4 shows that in 2001 the land-based 

nonroad diesel category contributed 

about 160,000 tons of PM2.5 emissions 

and by 2030 they drop to under 18,000 

tons. Likewise, in 2001, annual PM2.5

emissions from highway diesel engines 

totaled about 110,000 tons falling in 

2030 to about 10,000 tons. Table II–3 

shows a similar downward trend 

occurring for annual NOX emissions. In 

2001, NOX emissions from highway 

diesel engines’ amounted to over 3.7 

million tons but by 2030 they fall to 

about 260,000 tons. Finally, land-based 

nonroad diesels in 2001 emitted over 

1.5 million tons of NOX but by 2030 

these emissions drop to approximately 

430,000 tons. 

Marine diesel engine and locomotive 

inventories were developed using 

multiple methodologies. Chapter 3 of 

the draft RIA provides a detailed 

explanation of our approach. In 

summary, the quality of data available 

for locomotive inventories made it 

possible to develop more detailed 

estimates of fleet composition and 

emission rates than we have previously 

done. Locomotive emissions were 

calculated based on estimated current 

and projected fuel consumption rates. 

Emissions were calculated separately for 

the following locomotive categories: 

line-haul locomotives in large railroads, 

switching locomotives in large railroads 

(including Class II/III switch railroads 

owned by Class I railroads), other linehaul locomotives (i.e., local and regional 

railroads), other switch/terminal 

locomotives, and passenger 

locomotives. Our inventories for marine 

diesel engines were created using the 

inventory for marine diesel engines up 

to 30 liters per cylinder displacement 

including recreational, commercial, and 

auxiliary applications was developed by 

using a methodology based on engine 

population, hours of use, average engine 

loads, and in-use emissions factors. 

TABLE II–3.—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL NOX BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS

Category 

2001 2030 

NOX short 

tons 

Percent of 

mobile source 

Percent of 

total NOX Percent of mobile source 

Percent of 

total short tons 

Locomotive ............................................... 1,118,786 9.0 5.1 854,226 19.0 8.1 

Recreational Marine Diesel ...................... 40,437 0.3 0.2 48,155 1.1 0.5 

Commercial Marine (C1 & C2) ................ 833,963 6.7 3.8 679,973 15.1 6.4 

Land-Based Nonroad Diesel .................... 1,548,236 12.5 7.1 434,466 9.7 4.1 

Commercial Marine (C3)* ........................ 224,100 1.8 1.0 531,641 11.8 5.0 

Small Nonroad SI ..................................... 100,319 0.8 0.5 114,287 2.5 1.1 

Recreational Marine SI ............................ 42,252 0.3 0.2 92,188 2.1 0.9 

SI Recreational Vehicles .......................... 5,488 0.0 0.0 20,136 0.4 0.2 

Large Nonroad SI (>25hp) ....................... 321,098 2.6 1.5 46,253 1.0 0.4 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15964 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II–3.—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL NOX BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS—Continued 

Category 

2001 2030 

NOX short 

tons 

Percent of 

mobile source 

Percent of 

total NOX Percent of 

mobile source 

Percent of 

total short tons 

Aircraft ...................................................... 83,764 0.7 0.4 118,740 2.6 1.1 

Total Off Highway .................................... 4,318,443 34.8 19.8 2,940,066 65.5 27.7 

Highway Diesel ........................................ 3,750,886 30.2 17.2 260,915 5.8 2.5 

Highway non-diesel .................................. 4,354,430 35.0 20.0 1,289,780 28.7 12.2 

Total Highway .......................................... 8,105,316 65.2 37.2 1,550,695 34.5 14.6 

Total Diesel (distillate) Mobile .................. 7,292,308 58.7 33.5 2,277,735 50.7 21.5 

Total Mobile Sources ............................... 12,423,758 100 57.0 4,490,761 100 42.4 

Stationary Point and Area Sources ......... 9,355,659 - 43.0 6,111,866 - 57.6 

Total Man-Made Sources ........................ 21,779,418 - 100 10,602,627 - 100 

* This category includes emissions from Category 3 (C3) propulsion engines and C2/3 auxiliary engines used on ocean-going vessels. 

TABLE II–4.—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL PM2.5 BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS

Category 

2001 2030 

PM2.5 short 

tons 

Percent of 

diesel mobile 

Percent of 

mobile source 

PM2.5 short 

tons 

Percent of 

diesel mobile 

Percent of 

mobile source 

Locomotive ....................................... 29,660 8 .9 6 .36 25,109 32 .2 10 .01 

Recreational Marine Diesel .............. 1,096 0 .3 0 .24 1,141 1 .5 0 .45 

Commercial Marine (C1 & C2) ........ 28,728 8 .6 6 .16 23,758 30 .5 9 .47 

Land-Based Nonroad Diesel ............ 164,180 49 .2 35 .2 17,934 23 .0 7 .1 

Commercial Marine (C3) .................. 20,023 .......................... 4 .30 52,682 .......................... 20 .99 

Small Nonroad SI ............................. 25,575 .......................... 5 .5 35,761 .......................... 14 .3 

Recreational Marine SI .................... 17,101 .......................... 3 .7 6,378 .......................... 2 .5 

SI Recreational Vehicles .................. 12,301 .......................... 2 .6 9,953 .......................... 4 .0 

Large Non road SI (>25hp) ............. 1,610 .......................... 0 .3 2,844 .......................... 1 .1 

Aircraft .............................................. 5,664 .......................... 1 .22 8,569 .......................... 3 .41 

Total Off Highway ............................ 305,939 .......................... 65 .6 184,129 .......................... 73 .4 

Highway Diesel ................................ 109,952 33 .0 23 .6 10,072 12 .9 4 .0 

Highway non-diesel .......................... 50,277 .......................... 10 .8 56,734 .......................... 22 .6 

Total Highway .................................. 160,229 .......................... 34 .4 66,806 .......................... 26 .6 

Total Diesel (distillate) Mobile .......... 333,618 100 71 .6 78,014 100 31 .1 

Total Mobile Sources ....................... 466,168 .......................... 100 250,934 .......................... 100 

Stationary Point and Area Sources 

Diesel ............................................ 3,189 .......................... .......................... 2,865 .......................... ..........................

Stationary Point and Areas Sources 

non-diesel ..................................... 1,963,264 .......................... .......................... 1,817,722 .......................... ..........................

Total Stationary Point and Area 

Sources ........................................ 1,966,453 .......................... .......................... 1,820,587 .......................... ..........................

Total Man-Made Sources ......... 2,432,621 .......................... .......................... 2,071,521 .......................... ..........................

(3) PM2.5 Emission Reductions 

In 2001 annual emissions from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

totaled about 60,000 tons. Table II–4 

shows the distribution of these PM2.5

emissions: locomotives contributed 

about 30,000 tons, recreational marine 

diesel roughly 1,000 tons, and 

commercial marine diesel (C1 and C2) 

29,000 tons. Due to current standards, 

annual PM2.5 emissions from these 

engines drop to 50,000 tons in 2030 

with roughly proportional emission 

reductions occurring in both the 

locomotive and commercial marine 

diesel categories while the recreational 

marine diesel category experiences a 

slight increase in PM2.5 emissions. Both 

Tables II–5 and Figure II–4 show PM2.5

emissions nearly flat through 2030 

before beginning to rise again due to 

growth in these sectors. 

Table II–5 shows how the proposed 

rule would begin reducing PM2.5

emissions from the current national 

inventory baseline starting in 2015 

when annual reductions of 7,000 tons 

would occur. By 2020 that number 

would grow to 15,000 tons of PM2.5, by 

2030 to 28,000 annual tons, and 

reductions would continue to grow 

through 2040 to about 39,000 tons of 

PM2.5 annually. 

TABLE II–5.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL PM2.5 EMISSIONS

[Short tons/year] 

2015 2020 2030 2040 

Without Proposed Rule .................................................................................................................... 51,000 50,000 50,000 54,000 

With Proposed Rule ......................................................................................................................... 44,000 35,000 22,000 15,000 

Reductions From Proposed Rule .................................................................................................... 7,000 15,000 28,000 39,000 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15965 

Although this proposed rule results in 

large nationwide PM2.5 inventory 

reductions, it would also help urban 

areas that have significant locomotive 

and marine diesel engine emissions in 

their inventories. Table II–6 shows the 

percent these engines contribute to the 

mobile source diesel PM2.5 inventory in 

a variety of urban areas in 2001 and 

2030. In 2001, a number of metropolitan 

areas saw locomotives and marine 

diesel engines contribute a much larger 

share to their local inventories than the 

national average including Houston (42 

percent), Los Angeles (32 percent), and 

Baltimore (23 percent). In 2030, each of 

these metropolitan areas would 

continue to see locomotive and marine 

diesel engines comprise a larger portion 

of their mobile source diesel PM2.5

inventory than the national average as 

would other communities including 

Cleveland (72 percent), Chicago (70 

percent) and Chattanooga (70 percent). 

TABLE II–6.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL CONTRIBUTION TO MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL PM2.5 INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN

AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030 

Metropolitan area 

(MSA) 

2001 

Percent 

2030 

Percent 

National Average ...... 18 65 

Los Angeles, CA ....... 32 73 

Houston, TX .............. 42 85 

Chicago, IL ............... 25 70 

Philadelphia, PA ....... 20 64 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH ................. 26 72 

St. Louis, MO ............ 22 68 

Seattle, WA ............... 17 61 

Kansas City, MO ...... 21 68 

Baltimore, MD ........... 23 68 

Cincinnati, OH .......... 24 70 

Boston, MA ............... 8 41 

Huntington-Ashland 

WV-KY-OH ............ 53 91 

New York, NY ........... 4 21 

San Joaquin Valley, 

CA ......................... 9 39 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, 

MN ......................... 11 48 

Atlanta, GA ............... 6 30 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ .... 5 27 

Birmingham, AL ........ 17 58 

Detroit, MI ................. 5 26 

Chattanooga, TN ...... 22 70 

TABLE II–6.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL CONTRIBUTION TO MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL PM2.5 INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN

AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030—Continued 

Metropolitan area 

(MSA) 

2001 

Percent 

2030 

Percent 

Indianapolis, IN ......... 5 30 

(4) NOX Emissions Reductions 

In 2001 annual emissions from 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

totaled about 2.0 million tons. Table II–

3 shows the distribution of these NOX

emissions: locomotives contributed 

about 1.1 million tons, recreational 

marine diesel roughly 40,000 tons, and 

commercial marine diesel (C1 and C2) 

834,000 tons. Due to current standards, 

annual NOX emission from these 

engines drop to 1.6 million tons in 2030 

with roughly proportional emission 

reductions occurring in both the 

locomotive and commercial marine 

diesel categories while the recreational 

marine diesel category experiences an 

increase in PM2.5 emissions. Both Table 

II–7 and Figure II–5 show NOX


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.003</GPH>
15966 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

emissions remaining nearly flat through 

2030 before beginning to rise again due 

to growth in these sectors. 

Table II–7 shows how the proposed 

rule would begin reducing NOX

emissions from the current national 

inventory baseline starting in 2015 

when annual reductions of 84,000 tons 

would occur. By 2020 that number 

would grow to 293,000 tons of NOX, by 

2030 to 765,000 annual tons, and 

reductions would continue to grow 

through 2040 to about 1.1 million tons 

of NOX annually. 

These numbers are comparable to 

emission reductions projected in 2030 

for our already established nonroad Tier 

4 program. Table II–8 provides the 2030 

NOX emission reductions (and PM 

reductions) for this proposed rule 

compared to the Heavy-Duty Highway 

rule and Nonroad Tier 4 rule. The 2030 

NOX reductions of about 740,000 tons 

for the Nonroad Tier 4 are similar to 

those from this proposed rule. 

TABLE II–7.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL NOX EMISSIONS

[Short tons/year] 

2015 2020 2030 2040 

Without Proposed Rule ............................................................................................ 1,633,000 1,582,000 1,582,000 1,703,000 

With Proposed Rule ................................................................................................. 1,549,000 1,289,000 817,000 579,000 

Reductions From Proposed Rule ............................................................................ 84,000 293,000 765,000 1,124,000 

TABLE II–8.—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT

MOBILE SOURCE RULES

[Short tons] 

Rule NOX PM2.5

Proposed Locomotive 

and Marine ............ 765,000 28,000 

TABLE II–8.—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT

MOBILE SOURCE RULES—Continued 

[Short tons] 

Rule NOX PM2.5

Nonroad Tier 4 ......... 738,000 129,000 

TABLE II–8.—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT

MOBILE SOURCE RULES—Continued 

[Short tons] 

Rule NOX PM2.5

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

Although this proposed rule results in 

large nationwide NOX inventory 

reductions, it would also help urban 

areas that have significant 

concentrations of locomotive and 

marine diesel engines in their 

inventories. Table II–9 shows the 

percent these engines contribute to the 

mobile source diesel NOX inventory in 

a variety of urban areas in 2001 and 

2030. In 2001, a number of metropolitan 

areas saw locomotives and marine 

diesel engines contribute a much larger 

share to their local inventories than the 

national average including Houston (32 

percent), Kansas City (20 percent), and 

Los Angeles (19 percent). In 2030, each 

of these metropolitan areas would 

continue to see locomotive and marine 

diesel engines comprise a larger portion 

of their mobile source diesel PM2.5

inventory than the national average as 

would other communities including 

Birmingham (43 percent), Chicago (42 

percent) and Chattanooga (40 percent). 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15967 

TABLE II–9.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL ENGINE CONTRIBUTION

TO MOBILE SOURCE NOX INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN

AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030 

Metropolitan areas 

(MSA) 

2001 

Percent 

2030 

Percent 

National Average ...... 16 35 

Los Angeles, CA ....... 19 38 

Houston, TX .............. 32 45 

Chicago, IL ............... 20 42 

Philadelphia, PA ....... 14 19 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH ................. 19 40 

New York, NY ........... 5 8 

St. Louis, MO ............ 16 37 

Seattle, WA ............... 14 31 

Kansas City, MO ...... 20 44 

Cincinnati, OH .......... 18 39 

Huntington-Ashland, 

WV-KY-OH ............ 39 37 

Boston, MA ............... 7 11 

San Joaquin Valley, 

CA ......................... 9 26 

TABLE II–9.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL ENGINE CONTRIBUTION

TO MOBILE SOURCE NOX INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN

AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030—Continued 

Metropolitan areas 

(MSA) 

2001 

Percent 

2030 

Percent 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, 

MN ......................... 9 20 

Atlanta, GA ............... 5 13 

Birmingham, AL ........ 17 43 

Baltimore, MD ........... 8 10 

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ .... 6 15 

Detroit, MI ................. 3 9 

Chattanooga, TN ...... 16 40 

Indianapolis, IN ......... 5 13 

(5) Volatile Organic Compounds 

Emissions Reductions 

Emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from locomotive 

and marine diesel engines based on a 

50-state inventory are shown in Table 

II–10, along with the estimates of the 

reductions in 2015, 2020, 2030 and 2040 

we expect would result from the VOC 

exhaust emission standard in our 

proposed rule. In 2015 15,000 tons of 

VOCs would be reduced and by 2020 

reductions would almost double to 

27,000 tons annually from these 

engines. Over the next ten years annual 

reductions from controlled locomotive 

and marine diesel engines would 

produce annual VOC reductions of 

42,000 tons in 2030 and 54,000 tons in 

2040. 

Figure II–6 shows our estimate of 

VOC emissions between 2005 and 2040 

both with and without the proposed 

standards of this rule. We estimate that 

VOC emissions from locomotive and 

marine diesel engines would be reduced 

by 60 percent by 2030 and by 70 percent 

in 2040. 

TABLE II–10.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL VOC EMISSIONS

[short tons/year] 

2015 2020 2030 2040 

Without Proposed Rule .................................................................................................................... 72,000 71,000 72,000 78,000 

With Proposed Rule ......................................................................................................................... 57,000 44,000 30,000 24,000 

Reductions From Proposed Rule .................................................................................................... 15,000 27,000 42,000 54,000 

III. Emission Standards 

This section details the emission 

standards, implementation dates, and 

other major requirements of the 

proposed program. Following brief 

summaries of the types of locomotives 

and marine engines covered and of the 

existing standards, we describe the 

proposed provisions for setting: 

• Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for 

newly-built locomotives, 

• Standards for remanufactured Tier 

0, 1, and 2 locomotives, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.005</GPH>
15968 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

97All of the regulatory parts referenced in this 

preamble are parts in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, unless otherwise noted. 

98This small business provision is limited to 

railroads that are classified as small businesses by 

the Small Business Administration (SBA). Many but 

not all Class II and III railroads qualify as small 

businesses for this provision. See the 1998 

locomotive rule (63 FR 18978, April 16, 1998) for 

a complete discussion of the basis and application 

of this provision. 

99Marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl 

displacement are not included in this program. See 

Section 3E, below. 

• Standards and other provisions for 

diesel switch locomotives, 

• Requirements to reduce idling 

locomotive emissions, as well as 

possible ways to encourage emission 

reductions through the optimization of 

multi-locomotive teams (consists), and 

• Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for 

newly-built marine diesel engines. 

As discussed in sections I.A(2) and 

VII.A(2), we are also soliciting comment 

on setting standards for remanufactured 

marine diesel engines. 

A detailed discussion of the 

technological feasibility of the proposed 

standards follows the description of the 

proposed program. The section 

concludes with a discussion of 

considerations and activities 

surrounding emissions from large 

Category 3 engines used on ocean-going 

vessels, although we are not proposing 

provisions for these engines in this 

rulemaking. 

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, 

we are also proposing revised test 

procedures and related certification 

requirements. In addition, we are 

proposing to continue the averaging, 

banking, and trading (ABT) emissions 

credits provisions to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards. These 

provisions are described further in 

section IV. 

A. What Locomotives and Marine 

Engines Are Covered? 

The regulations being proposed 

would affect locomotives currently 

regulated under part 92 and marine 

diesel engines and vessels currently 

regulated under parts 89 and 94, as 

described below.97

With some exceptions, the regulations 

apply for all locomotives that operate 

extensively within the United States. 

See section IV.B for a discussion of the 

exemption for locomotives that are used 

only incidentally within the U.S. The 

exceptions include historic steampowered locomotives and locomotives 

powered solely by an external source of 

electricity. In addition, the regulations 

generally do not apply to existing 

locomotives owned by railroads that are 

classified as small businesses.98

Furthermore, engines used in 

locomotive-type vehicles with less than 

750 kW (1006 hp) total power (used 

primarily for railway maintenance), 

engines used only for hotel power (for 

passenger railcar equipment), and 

engines that are used in self-propelled 

passenger-carrying railcars, are 

excluded from these regulations. The 

engines used in these smaller 

locomotive-type vehicles are generally 

subject to the nonroad engine 

requirements of Parts 89 and 1039. 

There are currently three tiers of 

locomotive emission standards. The 

Tier 0 standards apply only to 

locomotives originally manufactured 

before 2002, the Tier 1 standards apply 

to new locomotives manufactured in 

2002–2004, and the Tier 2 standards 

apply to new locomotives manufactured 

in 2005 and later. Under the existing 

regulations, the applicability of the Tier 

1 and Tier 2 standards is based on the 

date of manufacture of the locomotive, 

rather than the engine. Thus, a newly 

manufactured engine in 2005 that is 

used to repower a 1990 model year 

locomotive would be subject to the Tier 

0 emission standards, which are also 

applicable to all other 1990 model year 

locomotives. As described in section 

IV.B, we are proposing some changes to 

this approach. 

The marine diesel engines covered by 

this rule would include propulsion 

engines used on vessels from 

recreational and small fishing boats to 

super-yachts, tugs and Great Lakes 

freighters, and auxiliary engines ranging 

from small gensets to large generators on 

ocean-going vessels.99 Marine diesel 

engines are categorized both by per 

cylinder displacement and by rated 

power. Consistent with our existing 

marine diesel emission control program, 

the proposed standards would apply to 

any marine diesel engine with per 

cylinder displacement below 30 liters 

installed on a vessel flagged or 

registered in the United States. 

According to our existing definitions, a 

marine engine is defined as an engine 

that is installed or intended to be 

installed on a marine vessel. 

While marine diesel engines up to 37 

kW (50 hp) are currently covered by our 

nonroad Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, 

they were not included in the nonroad 

Tier 3 and Tier 4 programs. Instead, 

they are covered in this rule, making 

this a comprehensive control strategy 

for all marine diesel engines below 30 

liters per cylinder displacement. This is 

a very broad range of engines and they 

are grouped into several categories for 

the existing standards, as described in 

detail in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. 

Consistent with our current marine 

diesel engine program, the standards 

described in this proposal would apply 

to engines manufactured for sale in the 

United States or imported into the 

United States beginning with the 

effective date of the standards. Any 

engine installed on a new vessel flagged 

or registered in the U.S. would be 

required to meet the appropriate 

emission limits. Also consistent with 

our current marine diesel engine 

program, the standards would also 

apply to any engine installed for the 

first time in a marine vessel flagged or 

registered in the U.S. after having been 

used in another application subject to 

different emission standards. In other 

words, an existing nonroad diesel 

engine would become a new marine 

diesel engine, and subject to the marine 

diesel engine standards, when it is 

marinized for use in a marine 

application. 

Our current marine diesel engine 

emission controls do not apply to 

marine diesel engines on foreign vessels 

entering U.S. ports. At this time we 

believe it is appropriate to postpone 

consideration of the application of our 

national standards to engines on foreign 

vessels to a future rulemaking that 

would consider controls for Category 3 

engines on ocean-going vessels. This 

will allow us consider the engines on 

foreign vessels as an integrated system, 

to better evaluate the regulatory options 

available for controlling their overall 

emission contribution to U.S. ambient 

air quality. 

Nevertheless, we are soliciting 

comment on whether the emission 

standards we are proposing in this 

action should apply to engines below 30 

liters per cylinder displacement 

installed on foreign vessels entering 

U.S. ports, and to no longer exclude 

these engines from the emission 

standards under 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3). 

Commenters are also invited to suggest 

when the standards should apply to 

foreign vessels. For example, the 

standards could apply based on the date 

the engine is built or, consistent with 

MARPOL Annex VI, the date the vessel 

is built. 

B. Existing EPA Standards 

NOX emission levels from newly-built 

locomotives have been reduced over the 

past several years from unregulated 

levels of over 13 g/bhp-hr (17 g/kW-hr) 

to the current Tier 2 standard level for 

newly-built locomotives of 5.5 g/bhp-hr 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15969 

100Consistent with past EPA rulemakings, our 

regulations generally express standards, power 

ratings, and other quantities in international SI 

(metric) units—kW, g/kW-hr, etc. One exception to 

this is Part 92 (locomotives), which for historical 

reasons expresses standards in g/bhp-hr. This 

proposal retains these established norms for 

locomotive and marine engine regulations. 

However, in this preamble we have chosen to 

express standards in units of g/bhp-hr, to provide 

a common frame of reference. Where helpful for 

clarity, we have also included g/kW-hr standards in 

parentheses. In any compliance questions that 

might arise from differences in these due to, for 

example, rounding conventions, the regulations 

themselves establish the applicable requirements. 

(7.3 g/kW-hr)—a 60 percent 

reduction.100 PM reductions on the 

order of 50 percent have also been 

achieved under a Tier 2 standard level 

of 0.20 g/bhp-hr (0.27 g/kW-hr). EPA 

emission standards for marine diesel 

engines vary somewhat due to the 

ranges in size and application of engines 

included; however Tier 2 levels for 

recreational and commercial marine 

engines are generally comparable in 

stringency to those adopted for 

locomotives, and are now in the process 

of phasing in over 2004–2009. See 

Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for a complete 

listing of the existing standards, 

including standards for remanufactured 

locomotives. 

The Tier 2 emissions reductions have 

been achieved largely through engine 

calibration optimization and engine 

hardware design changes (such as 

improved fuel injectors and 

turbochargers, increased injection 

pressure, intake air after-cooling, 

combustion chamber design, reduced oil 

consumption and injection timing) 

Although these reductions in 

locomotive and marine emissions are 

important, they only bring today’s 

cleanest locomotives and marine diesels 

to roughly the emissions levels of new 

trucks in the early 1990’s, on the basis 

of grams per unit of work done. 

C. What Standards Are We Proposing? 

(1) Locomotive Standards 

(a) Line-Haul Locomotives 

We are proposing new emission 

standards for newly-built and 

remanufactured line-haul locomotives. 

Our proposed standards for newly-built 

line-haul locomotives would be 

implemented in two tiers: First, a new 

Tier 3 PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr 

(0.13 g/kW-hr) taking effect in 2012, 

based on engine design improvements; 

second, new Tier 4 standards of 0.03 g/ 

bhp-hr (0.04 g/kW-hr) for PM, 0.14 g/ 

bhp-hr (0.19 g/kW-hr) for HC (both 

taking effect in 2015), and 1.3 g/bhp-hr 

(1.8 g/kW-hr) for NOX (taking effect in 

2017), based on the application of the 

high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment 

technologies now being developed and 

introduced in the highway diesel sector. 

Our proposed standards for 

remanufactured line-haul locomotives 

would apply to all Tier 0, 1, and 2 

locomotives and are based on engine 

design improvements. The feasibility of 

the proposed standards and the 

technologies involved are discussed in 

detail in section III.D. Table III–1 

summarizes the proposed line-haul 

locomotive standards and 

implementation dates. See section 

III.C(3) for a discussion of the HC 

standards. 

TABLE III–1.—PROPOSED LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE STANDARDS

[g/bhp-hr] 

Standards apply to: Date PM NOX HC 

Remanufactured Tier 0 & 1 ........................................ 2008 as Available, 2010 Required ............................. 0.22 a 7.4 a 0.55 

Remanufactured Tier 2 ............................................... 2008 as Available, 2013 Required ............................. 0.10 5.5 0.30 

New Tier 3 .................................................................. 2012 ........................................................................... 0.10 5.5 0.30 

New Tier 4 .................................................................. PM and HC 2015 NOX 2017 ..................................... 0.03 1.3 0.14 

aFor Tier 0 locomotives originally manufactured without a separate loop intake air cooling system, these standards are 8.0 and 1.00 for NOX

and HC, respectively. 

(i) Remanufactured Locomotive 

Standards 

We have previously regulated 

remanufactured locomotive engines 

under section 213(a)(5) of the Clean Air 

Act as new locomotive engines and we 

propose to continue to do so in this rule. 

Under our proposed standards, the 

existing fleet of locomotives that are 

currently subject to Tier 0 standards 

(our current remanufactured engine 

standards) would need to comply with 

a new Tier 0 PM standard of 0.22 g/bhphr (0.30 g/kW-hr). They would also need 

to comply with a new Tier 0 NOX linehaul standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr (9.9 g/kWhr), except that Tier 0 locomotives that 

were built without a separate coolant 

loop for intake air (that is, using engine 

coolant for this purpose) would be 

subject to a less stringent Tier 0 NOX

standard of 8.0 g/bhp-hr (10.7 g/kW-hr) 

on the line-haul cycle. 

These non-separate loop locomotives 

were generally built before 1993, though 

some are of more recent model years. 

Because of their age, many of them are 

likely to be retired and not 

remanufactured again, and many are 

entering lower use applications within 

the railroad industry. Correspondingly, 

their contribution to the locomotive 

emissions inventory is diminishing. Our 

analysis indicates that it is feasible to 

obtain a NOX reduction for them on the 

order of 15 percent, from the current 

Tier 0 line-haul NOX standard of 9.5 g/ 

bhp-hr to the proposed 8.0 g/bhp-hr 

standard. However, we expect that any 

further reduction would require the 

addition of a separate intake air coolant 

loop, which provides more efficient 

cooling and therefore lower NOX. This 

would be a fairly expensive hardware 

change and could have sizeable impacts 

on the locomotive platform layout and 

weight constraints. We are aware that 

this group of older, non-separate loop 

Tier 0 locomotives is fairly diverse, and 

that achieving even a 8.0 g/bhp-hr NOX

standard along with a stringent Tier 0 

PM standard will be more difficult on 

some of these models than on others. 

We request comment on whether there 

are any locomotive families within this 

group for which meeting the proposed 

8.0 g/bhp-hr standard may not be 

feasible, especially considering the cost 

of doing so and the age of the 

locomotives involved. Commenters 

should discuss feasibility and projected 

costs, and should also discuss the extent 

to which this concern is mitigated by 

the prospect that these locomotives will 

be retired rather than remanufactured 

anyway, or will be moved to lower 

usage switcher or small railroad 

applications, and therefore will be less 

likely to be remanufactured under the 

new Tier 0 standards. 

We propose to apply the new Tier 0 

standards (and corresponding switchcycle standards) when the locomotive is 

remanufactured on or after January 1, 

2008. However, if no certified emissions 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15970 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

control system exists for the locomotive 

before October 31, 2007, these standards 

will instead apply 3 months after such 

a system is certified, but no later than 

January 1, 2010. This would provide an 

incentive to develop and certify systems 

complying with these standards as early 

as possible, but allow the railroad to 

avoid having to delay planned rebuilds 

if a certified system is not available 

when the program is expected to begin 

in 2008. We also propose to include a 

reasonable cost provision, described in 

section IV.B, to protect against the 

unlikely event that the only certified 

systems made available when this 

program starts in 2008 will be 

exorbitantly priced. 

Although under this approach, 

certification of new remanufacture 

systems before 2010 is voluntary, we 

believe that developers would strive to 

certify systems to the new standards as 

early as possible, even in 2008, to 

establish these products in the market, 

especially for the higher volume 

locomotive models anticipated to have 

significant numbers coming due for 

remanufacture in the next few years. 

This focus on higher volume products 

also maximizes the potential for large 

emission reductions very early in this 

program, greatly offsetting the effect of 

slow turnover to new Tier 3 and Tier 4 

locomotives inherent in this sector. 

We are also proposing to set new 

more stringent standards for 

locomotives currently subject to Tier 1 

and Tier 2 standards, to apply at the 

point of next remanufacture after the 

proposed implementation dates. Tier 1 

locomotives would need to comply with 

the same new PM standard of 0.22 g/ 

bhp-hr (0.30 g/kW-hr) required of Tier 0 

locomotives (they are already subject to 

the 7.4 g/bhp-hr (9.9 g/kW-hr) NOX

standard). This in essence expands the 

model years covered by the Tier 1 

standards from 2002–2004 to roughly 

1993–2004, greatly increasing the size of 

the Tier 1 fleet while at the same time 

reducing emissions from this broadened 

fleet. Under the proposal, Tier 2 

locomotives on the rails today or built 

prior to the start of Tier 3 would need 

to comply with a new Tier 2 PM linehaul standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr (0.13 g/ 

kW-hr). Because this is equal to the Tier 

3 standard, it essentially adds the entire 

fleet of Tier 2 locomotives to the clean 

Tier 3 category over a period of just a 

few years, as they go through a 

remanufacture cycle. 

The implementation schedule for the 

new Tier 1 standard would be the same 

as the 2008/2010 schedule discussed 

above for Tier 0 locomotives. Meeting 

the new Tier 2 standard would be 

required somewhat later, in 2013, 

reflecting the additional redesign 

challenge involved in meeting this more 

stringent standard, and the need to 

spread the redesign and certification 

workload faced by the manufacturers 

overall. However, as for Tier 0 and Tier 

1 locomotives, we are proposing that if 

a certified Tier 2 remanufacture system 

meeting the new standard is available 

early, anytime after January 1, 2008, this 

system would be required to be used, 

starting 3 months after it is certified, 

subject to a reasonable cost provision as 

with early Tier 0 and Tier 1 

remanufactures. We request comment 

on whether use of certified Tier 2 

remanufacture systems should be 

required on the same schedule as Tier 

3, that is, starting in 2012, given that we 

expect the upgraded Tier 2 designs to be 

very similar to newly-built Tier 3 

designs, and the likelihood that 

substantial numbers of Tier 2 

locomotives may be approaching their 

first scheduled remanufacture by 2012. 

These proposed remanufactured 

locomotive standards represent PM 

reductions of about 50 percent, and (for 

Tier 0 locomotives with separate loop 

intake air cooling) NOX reductions of 

about 20 percent. Significantly, these 

reductions would be substantial in the 

early years. This would be important to 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) being 

developed to achieve attainment with 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS), owing to the 2008 start date 

and relatively rapid remanufacture 

schedule (roughly every 7 years, though 

it varies by locomotive model and age). 

(ii) Newly-Built Locomotive Standards 

We are requesting comment on 

whether additional NOX emission 

reductions would be feasible and 

appropriate for Tier 3 locomotives in the 

2012 timeframe. There are proven diesel 

technologies not currently employed in 

Tier 2 locomotives that can significantly 

reduce NOX emissions, most notably 

cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). 

Although employed successfully in the 

heavy-duty highway diesel sector since 

2003, a considerable development and 

redesign program would need to be 

undertaken by locomotive 

manufacturers to apply cooled EGR to 

Tier 3 locomotives. This development 

work would not be limited to the engine 

but would include substantial changes 

to the locomotive chassis to handle the 

higher levels of heat rejection (engine 

cooling demand) required for cooled 

EGR. We project that it would require a 

similar degree of engineering time and 

effort to develop a cooled EGR solution 

for locomotive diesel engines as it will 

to develop the urea SCR based solution 

upon which we are basing our proposed 

Tier 4 NOX standard. Therefore, we 

have not considered the application of 

cooled EGR in setting our proposed Tier 

3 standard. 

It may be possible to reoptimize 

existing Tier 2 NOX control 

technologies, most notably injection 

timing retard (used to some degree on 

all diesel locomotives), to achieve a 

more modest NOX reduction of 10 to 20 

percent from the current Tier 2 levels. 

In fact, a version of General Electric’s 

Tier 2 locomotive is available today that 

achieves such NOX reductions for 

special applications such as the 

California South Coast Locomotive Fleet 

Average Emissions Program. In general, 

the use of injection timing retard to 

control NOX emissions comes with a 

tradeoff against fuel economy, durability 

and increased maintenance depending 

upon the degree to which injection 

timing retard is applied. Experience 

with on-highway trucks suggests that a 

20 percent NOX reduction based solely 

on injection timing retard could result 

in an increase of fuel consumption as 

much as 5 percent. We request comment 

on the feasibility and other impacts of 

applying technologies such as these in 

the Tier 3 timeframe. We also request 

comment on the extent to which any 

workload-based impediments to 

applying such technologies in Tier 3 

could be addressed via balancing it by 

obtaining less than the proposed NOX

reductions from remanufactured 

locomotives. We believe that a Tier 3 

NOX standard below 5 g/bhp-hr might 

be achievable with a limited impact if 

additional engineering resources were 

invested to optimize such a system for 

general line-haul application. We 

encourage commenters supporting 

lower NOX levels for Tier 3 locomotives 

to address whether some tradeoff in 

engineering development (or emissions 

averaging) between new Tier 3 

locomotives and remanufactured Tier 0 

locomotives might be appropriate. For 

example, would it be appropriate to set 

a Tier 3 NOX standard at 4.5 g/bhp-hr, 

but relax the NOX standard for later 

model Tier 0 locomotives to 8.0 g/bhphr instead of 7.4 g/bhp-hr? 

We are proposing that a manufacturer 

may defer meeting the Tier 4 NOX

standard until 2017. However, we 

expect that each manufacturer will 

undertake a single comprehensive 

redesign program for Tier 4, using this 

allowed deferral to work through any 

implementation and technology proveout issues that might arise with 

advanced NOX control technology, but 

relying on the same basic locomotive 

platform and overall emission control 

space allocations for all Tier 4 product 

years. For this reason we are proposing 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15971 

101See, for example, letter from Catherine 

Witherspoon, Executive Director of the California 

Air Resources Board, to EPA Administrator Stephen 

Johnson, September 7, 2006. 

that locomotives certified under Tier 4 

in 2015 and 2016 without Tier 4 NOX

control systems have this system added 

when they undergo their first 

remanufacture, and be subject to the 

Tier 4 NOX standard thereafter. 

We are proposing that, starting in Tier 

4, line-haul locomotives will not be 

required to meet standards on the 

switch cycle. Line-haul locomotives 

were originally made subject to switch 

cycle standards to help ensure robust 

control in use and in recognition of the 

fact that many line haul locomotives 

have in the past been used for switcher 

service later in life. As explained in 

section III.C(1)(b), the latter is of less 

concern today. Also, we expect that the 

aftertreatment technologies used in Tier 

4 will provide effective control over a 

broad range of operation, thus lessening 

the need for a switch cycle to ensure 

robust control. We propose that newlybuilt Tier 3 locomotives and Tier 0 

through Tier 2 locomotives 

remanufactured under this program be 

subject to switch cycle standards, set at 

levels above the line-haul cycle 

standards (Table III–1) in the same 

proportion that the original Tier 0 

through Tier 2 switch cycle standards 

are above their corresponding line-haul 

cycle standards. See section III.C(1)(b) 

for details. 

(b) Switch Locomotives 

Our 1998 locomotive rule included 

some provisions aimed at addressing 

emissions from switch locomotives. We 

adopted a set of switcher standards and 

a switcher test cycle. This cycle made 

use of the same notch-by-notch test data 

as the line haul cycle, but reweighted 

these notch-specific emission results to 

correspond to typical switcher duty. In 

addition to controlling emissions from 

dedicated switchers, we viewed this 

cycle as adding robustness to the linehaul emissions control program. For this 

reason, and because aging line-haul 

locomotives have often in the past 

found utility as switchers, we subjected 

all regulated locomotives to the switch 

cycle. We also allowed for dedicated 

switch locomotives, defined as 

locomotives designed or used primarily 

for short distance operation and using 

an engine with rated power at 2300 hp 

(1700 kW) or less, to be optionally 

exempted from the line-haul cycle 

standards. 

There have been a number of changes 

in the rail industry since our 1998 

rulemaking that are relevant to 

switchers. First, locomotives marketed 

for line-haul service have continued to 

increase in size, to a point where today’s 

4000+hp (3000+kW) line-haul 

locomotives are too large for practical 

use in switching service. Second, there 

have been practically no U.S. sales of 

newly-built switchers by the primary 

locomotive builders, EMD and GE, for 

many years. Third, smaller builders 

have entered this market, selling new or 

refurbished locomotives with one to 

three newly-built diesel engines 

originally designed for the nonroad 

equipment market, but recertified under 

Part 92, or sold under the 40 CFR 92.907 

provisions that allow limited sales of 

locomotives using nonroad-certified 

engines. Fourth, although this new 

generation of switchers has shown great 

promise, their purchase prices on the 

order of a million dollars or more, 

compared to the relatively low cost of 

maintaining old switchers, have limited 

sales primarily for use in California and 

Texas where state government subsidies 

are available. 

All of these factors together have 

produced a situation in which the 

current fleet of old switchers, including 

many pre-1973 locomotives not subject 

to any emissions standards, is 

maintained and kept in service. Because 

they have relatively light duty cycles 

and generally operate very close to 

repair facilities, they can be maintained 

almost indefinitely. Though many have 

poor fuel economy, this alone is not of 

great enough concern to the railroads to 

warrant replacing them because even 

very busy switchers consume a fraction 

of the fuel used by long-distance linehaul locomotives. 

At the same time, these older switch 

locomotives have come under 

increasing public scrutiny. When 

operated in railyards located in urban 

neighborhoods, they have often become 

the focus of complaints from citizens 

groups about noise, smoke, and other 

emissions, and state and local 

governments have begun to place a 

higher priority on reducing their 

emissions.101

We note that switchers (or any other 

locomotives) that have not been 

remanufactured to EPA standards are 

not considered covered by the full 

preemption of state and local emission 

standards in section 209(e)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, which applies to 

standards relating to the control of 

emissions from new locomotive engines. 

Similarly, the preemption that does 

apply for locomotives that are certified 

to EPA standards does not generally 

apply for any locomotive that has 

significantly exceeded its useful life. 

The provisions of section 209(e)(2) 

pertaining to other nonroad engines 

would apply for such engines, as well 

as other engines used in locomotives 

excluded from the definition of ‘‘new.’’

Such engines may be subject to 

regulation by California and other states. 

As discussed in section II.B, we too 

are concerned that emissions from 

locomotives in urban railyards, many of 

which are switch locomotives, are 

causing substantial adverse health 

effects. Some railroads have been 

attempting to address these concerns, 

adopting voluntary idling restrictions 

and, where government subsidies are 

available, replacing older switchers with 

cleaner, quieter new-generation 

switchers. In light of these trends and 

market realities, we believe it is 

appropriate to propose standards and 

other provisions specific to switch 

locomotives, aimed at obtaining 

substantial overall emission reductions 

from this important fleet of locomotives. 

We are proposing Tier 3 and 4 

emission standards for newly-built 

switch locomotives, shown in Table III–

2, based on the capability of the Tier 3 

and 4 nonroad engines that will be 

available to power switch locomotives 

in the future under our clean nonroad 

diesel program. We propose to retain the 

existing switch locomotive test cycle 

upon which compliance with these 

standards would be measured, but not 

to apply the line-haul standards and 

cycle to Tier 3 and 4 switchers, in light 

of the divergence that has occurred in 

the design of newly-built switch and 

line-haul locomotives. We also propose 

that Tier 0, 1, and 2 switch locomotives 

certified only on the switch cycle (as 

allowed in our Part 92 regulations), be 

subject to a set of remanufactured 

locomotive standards equivalent to our 

proposed program for remanufactured 

line-haul locomotives, with 

proportional levels of emission 

reductions. These standards are also the 

switch cycle standards for the Tier 3 

and earlier line-haul locomotives that 

are subject to compliance requirements 

on the switch cycle. In the case of the 

Tier 3 line-haul locomotives, we are 

proposing that the Tier 2 switch cycle 

standards be applied rather than the 

Tier 3 standards for dedicated switchers 

because the latter are based on nonroad 

engines. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15972 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III–2.—PROPOSED EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SWITCH LOCOMOTIVES

[g/bhp-hr] 

Switch locomotive standards apply to: PM NOX HC Date 

Remanufactured Tier 0 ......................................................................... 0.26 11.8 2.10 2008 as available, 2010 required. 

Remanufactured Tier 1 ......................................................................... 0.26 11.0 1.20 2008 as available, 2010 required. 

Remanufactured Tier 2 ......................................................................... 0.13 8.1 0.60 2008 as available, 2013 required. 

Tier 3 ..................................................................................................... 0.10 5.0 0.60 2011. 

Tier 4 ..................................................................................................... 0.03 1.3 0.14 2015. 

Standards and implementation dates 

for large nonroad engines vary by 

horsepower and by whether or not the 

engine is designed for portable electric 

power generation (gensets), as shown in 

Table III–3. This is significant for the 

switch locomotive program because it 

has been the practice for switch 

locomotive builders to use a variety of 

nonroad engine configurations. For 

example, a manufacturer building a 

2100 hp switcher using nonroad engines 

in 2011 could team three 700 hp engines 

designed to the nonroad Tier 4 

standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM and 0.30 

g/bhp-hr NOX, or two 1050 hp engines 

at 0.075/2.6 g/bhp-hr PM/NOX, or a 

single 2100 hp engine at 0.075/0.50 or 

0.075/2.6 g/bhp-hr PM/NOX, depending 

on if the engine is a genset engine or 

not. 

As discussed in the nonroad Tier 4 

rulemaking in which we set these 

standards, we believe that the standards 

set for all of these nonroad engines 

achieve the greatest degree of emission 

reduction achievable through the 

application of technology which the 

Administrator determines will be 

available, with appropriate 

consideration to factors listed in the 

Clean Air Act. There are reasons for a 

switcher manufacturer to choose one 

configuration of engines over another 

related to function, packaging, 

reliability and other factors. We believe 

that limiting a manufacturer’s choice to 

only the cleanest configuration in any 

given year would hinder optimum 

designs and thereby would tend to work 

against our goal of encouraging the 

turnover of the current fleet of old 

switchers. Furthermore, we note that 

there is no single large engine category 

that consistently has the most stringent 

nonroad Tier 4 PM and NOX standards 

from year to year. We also note that, 

because State subsidies for the purchase 

of new switch locomotives have been 

clearly tied to their lower emissions, 

and also because the use of loweremitting engines can generate valuable 

ABT credits, there is likely to be 

continuing pressure driving the industry 

toward the cleanest nonroad engines 

available in whatever new switcher 

market does develop. 

TABLE III–3.—LARGE NONROAD ENGINE TIER 4 STANDARDS

[g/bhp-hr] 

Rated power PM NOX Model year 

TM750 hp ....................................................................................................................................... 0.01 

0.01 

a 3.0 (NOX+NMHC) 

0.30 

2011 

2014 

750–1200 hp ................................................................................................................................ 0.075 

0.02 

2.6 b 0.50 2011 

2015 

>1200 hp ...................................................................................................................................... 0.075 

0.02 

b 0.50 

b 0.50 

2011 

2015 

a 0.30 NOX for 50% of sales in 2011–2013, or alternatively 1.5 g NOX for 100% of sales. b 2.6 for non-genset engines—setting the long-term Tier 4 standard for these engines was deferred in the Nonroad Tier 4 Rule. 

There is one exception to this 

approach that we consider necessary. In 

the Tier 4 nonroad engine rule, we 

deferred setting a final Tier 4 NOX

standard for non-genset engines over 

750 hp. These are typically used in large 

bulldozers and mine haul trucks. This 

was done in order to allow additional 

time to evaluate the technical issues 

involved in adapting NOX control 

technology to these applications and 

engines (69 FR 38979, June 29, 2004). 

We believe it is appropriate to propose 

a Tier 4 NOX standard for switch 

locomotives in 2015 based on SCR 

technology, as we are proposing for linehaul locomotives in 2017. We believe 

this to be feasible because the switch 

locomotive designer will have a variety 

of nonroad engine choices equipped 

with SCR available in 2015, such as 

multiple <750 hp engines or larger 

genset engines, an opportunity that is 

not available to large nonroad machine 

designers due to functional and 

packaging constraints. To set a non-SCR 

based standard for switch locomotives 

indefinitely, or to wait to do so after we 

set the final Tier 4 NOX standard for 

mobile machine engines above 750 hp, 

would create significant uncertainty for 

the manufacturers and railroads, and 

would be contrary to our intent to 

reduce locomotive emissions in 

switchyards. We note too that SCR 

introduction in the fairly limited fleet of 

newly-built switchers likely to exist in 

2015 and 2016 provides an opportunity 

for railroads to become familiar with 

urea handling and SCR operation in 

accessible switchyards, before large 

scale introduction in the far-ranging 

line-haul fleet. 

Although we are factoring the current 

practice of building new switchers 

powered by nonroad-certified engines 

into the design of the program, it is not 

our intent to discourage the 

development and sale of traditional 

medium-speed engine switch 

locomotives. We have evaluated the 

proposed Tier 3 and 4 standards in this 

context and have concluded that they 

will be feasible for switchers using 

medium-speed engines as well as 

higher-speed nonroad engines. 

Because in today’s market the 

certifying switch locomotive 

manufacturer is typically a purchaser of 

nonroad engines and not involved in 

their design, we see the value in 

providing a streamlined option to help 

in the early implementation of this 

program. As described in Section IV, we 

are proposing that, for a program startVerDate Aug<31>2005 04:54 Apr 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM 03APP2

sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15973 

102 Jessica Montan ̃ ez and Matthew Mahler, 

‘‘Reducing Idling Locomotives Emissions’’, NC 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

DAQ http://daq.state.nc.us/planning/ 

locoindex.shtml. 

up period sufficient to encourage the 

turnover of the existing switcher fleet to 

the new cleaner engines, switch 

locomotives may use nonroad-certified 

engines without need for certification 

under the locomotive program. Because 

of large differences in how the 

locomotive and nonroad programs 

operate in such areas as useful life and 

in-use testing, we do not believe it 

appropriate to allow locomotive ABT 

credits to be generated or used by 

locomotives sold under this option, 

though of course this would not 

preclude nonroad engine ABT credits 

under that program. For the same 

reasons, we also think it makes sense to 

eventually sunset this option after it has 

served its purpose of encouraging the 

early introduction of new low-emitting 

switch locomotives. We propose that the 

streamlined path be available for 10 

years, through 2017, and ask for 

comment on whether a shorter or longer 

interval is appropriate, taking into 

account the turnover incentive 

provisions described below. We are 

proposing other compliance and ABT 

provisions relevant to switch 

locomotives as discussed in section 

IV.B(1), (2), (3), and (9). 

Finally, we are proposing a rewording 

of the definition of a switch locomotive 

to make clear that it is the total switch 

locomotive power rating that must be 

below 2300 hp to qualify, not the engine 

power rating, and to drop the 

unnecessary stipulation that it be 

designed or used primarily for short 

distance operation. This clears up the 

ambiguity in the current definition over 

multi-engine switchers. 

(c) Reduction of Locomotive Idling 

Emissions 

Even in very efficient railroad 

operations, locomotive engines spend a 

substantial amount of time idling, 

during which they emit harmful 

pollutants, consume fuel, create noise, 

and increase maintenance costs. A 

significant portion of this idling occurs 

in railyards, as railcars and locomotives 

are transferred to build up trains. Many 

of these railyards are in urban 

neighborhoods, close to where people 

live, work, and go to school. 

Short periods of idling are sometimes 

unavoidable, such as while waiting on 

a siding for another train to pass. Longer 

periods of idling operation may be 

necessary to run accessories such as cab 

heaters/air conditioners or to keep 

engine coolant (generally water without 

anti-freeze to maximize cooling 

efficiency) from freezing and damaging 

the engine if an auxiliary source of heat 

or power is not installed on the 

locomotive. Locomotive idling may also 

occur due to engineer habits of not 

shutting down the engine, and the 

associated difficulty in determining just 

when the engine can be safely shut 

down and for how long. 

Automatic engine stop/start (AESS) 

systems have been developed to start or 

stop a locomotive engine based on 

parameters such as: ambient 

temperature, battery charge, water and 

oil temperature, and brake system 

pressure. AESS systems have been 

proven to reliably and safely reduce 

unnecessary idling. Typically they will 

shutdown the locomotive after a 

specified period of idling (typically 15–

30 minutes) as long as the parameters 

are all within their required 

specifications. If one of the 

aforementioned parameters goes out of 

its specified range, the AESS will restart 

the locomotive and allow it to idle until 

the parameters have returned to their 

required limits. Although developed 

primarily to save fuel, AESS systems 

also reduce idling emissions and noise 

by reducing idling time. Any emissions 

spike from engine startup has been 

found to be minor, and thus idle 

emissions are reduced in proportion to 

idling time eliminated. It is expected 

that overall PM and NOX idling 

emission reductions of up to 50 percent 

can be achieved through the use of 

AESS. 

A further reduction in idling 

emissions can be achieved through the 

use of onboard auxiliary power units 

(APUs), either as standalone systems or 

in conjunction with an AESS. There are 

two main manufacturers of APUs, 

EcoTrans which manufacturers the K9 

APU, and Kim Hotstart which 

manufactures the Diesel Driven Heating 

System (DDHS). In contrast to AESS, 

which works to reduce unnecessary 

idling, the APU goes further by also 

reducing the amount of time when 

locomotive engine idling is necessary, 

especially in cold weather climates. 

APUs are small (less than 50 hp) diesel 

engines that stop and start themselves as 

needed to provide heat to both the 

engine coolant and engine oil, power to 

charge the batteries and to run necessary 

accessories such as those required for 

cab comfort. This allows the much 

larger locomotive engine to be shut 

down while the locomotive remains in 

a state of readiness thereby reducing 

fuel consumption without the risk of the 

engine being damaged in cold weather. 

If an APU does not have the capability 

of an AESS built in, it may need to be 

installed in conjunction with one in 

order to receive the full complement of 

idle reductions that the combination of 

technologies can provide. The APUs are 

nonroad engines compliant with EPA or 

State of California nonroad engine 

standards, and emit at much lower 

levels than an idling locomotive. 

Installation of an APU today costs 

approximately $25,000 to $35,000; 

while an AESS can cost anywhere from 

$7,500 to $15,000.102 The costs vary 

depending on the model and 

configuration of the locomotive on 

which the equipment is being installed, 

and would likely be substantially lower 

if incorporated into the design of a 

newly-built locomotive. The amount of 

idle reduction each system can provide 

is also dependent on a number of 

variables, such as what the function of 

the locomotive is (e.g. a switcher or a 

line-haul), where it operates (i.e. 

geographical area), and what its 

operating characteristics are (e.g. 

number of hours per day it operates). 

The duty cycles in 40 CFR 92.132, based 

on real world data available at the time 

they were adopted in 1998, indicate a 

line haul locomotive idles nearly 40% 

of its operating time, and a switcher 

locomotive idles nearly 60% of its 

operating time. This idling time can be 

further divided into low idle (when 

there is no load on the engine) and 

normal idle (when there is a load on the 

engine). Only low idle can be reduced 

by an AESS, while an APU can reduce 

normal idle (or idle in a higher notch 

such as notch 3 which can burn up to 

11 gallons per hour). Another difference 

between the two types of idle is the fuel 

consumption rate which is less at low 

idle than normal idle (2.4–3.6 gallons 

per hour vs. 2.9–5.4 gallons per hour, 

based on Tier 2 certification data). 

Although there is a gradual trend in 

the railroad industry toward wider use 

of these types of idle control devices, we 

believe it is important for ensuring air 

quality benefits to propose that idle 

controls be required as part of a certified 

emission control system. We are 

proposing that at least an AESS system 

be required on all new Tier 3 and Tier 

4 locomotives, and also installed on all 

existing locomotives that are subject to 

the new remanufactured engine 

standards, at the point of first 

remanufacture under the new standards, 

unless the locomotive is already 

equipped with idle controls. 

Specifically, we are requiring that 

locomotives equipped with an AESS 

device under this program must shut 

down the locomotive engine after no 

more than 30 continuous minutes of 

idling, and be able to stop and start the 

engine at least six times per day without 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15974 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

causing engine damage or other serious 

problems. The system must prevent the 

locomotive engine from being restarted 

to resume extended idling unless one of 

the following conditions necessitates 

such idling: to prevent engine damage 

such as damage caused by coolant 

freezing, to maintain air brake pressure, 

to perform necessary maintenance, or to 

otherwise comply with applicable 

government regulations. EPA approval 

of alternative criteria could be requested 

provided comparable idle emissions 

reduction is achieved. 

As described in the RIA, it is widely 

accepted that for most locomotives, the 

fuel savings that result in the first 

several years after installation of an 

AESS system will more than offset the 

cost of adding the system to the 

locomotive. Given these short payback 

times for adding idle reduction 

technologies to a typical locomotive, 

normal market forces have led the major 

railroads to retrofit many of their 

locomotives with such controls. 

However, as is common with pollution, 

market forces generally do not account 

for the external social costs of the idling 

emissions. This proposal addresses 

those locomotives for which the 

railroads determine that the fuel savings 

are insufficient to justify the cost of the 

retrofit. We believe that applying AESS 

to these locomotives is appropriate 

when one also considers the very 

significant emissions reductions that 

would result, as well as the longer term 

fuel savings. We request comment on 

the need for this requirement. We also 

request comment regarding the reasons 

why a railroad might choose not to 

apply AESS absent this provision. Are 

there costs for AESS and retrofits that 

are higher than our analysis would 

suggest? Are there other reasons that 

would lead a railroad to not adopt AESS 

universally? 

Even though we are proposing to 

require only AESS systems, we 

encourage the additional use of APUs by 

providing in our proposed test 

regulations a way for the manufacturer 

to appropriately account for the 

emission benefits of greater idle 

reduction. See Section IV.B(8) for 

further discussion. We are not 

proposing that APUs must be installed 

on every locomotive because it is not 

clear how much additional benefit they 

would provide outside of regions and 

times of the year where low 

temperatures or other factors that 

warrant the use of an APU exist, and 

they do involve some inherent design 

and operational complexities that could 

not be justified without commensurate 

benefits. We are however asking for 

comment on requiring that some subset 

of new locomotives be equipped with 

APUs where feasible and beneficial. We 

are also asking for comments on 

whether to adopt a regulatory provision 

that would exempt a railroad from AESS 

and/or APU requirements if it 

demonstrated that it was achieving an 

equal or greater degree of idle reduction 

using some other method. 

(d) Load Control in a Locomotive 

Consist 

A locomotive consist is the linking of 

two or more locomotives in a train, 

typically where the lead locomotive has 

control over the power and dynamic 

brake settings on the trailing 

locomotives. For situations where 

locomotives are operated in a consist, 

EPA is requesting comment on how the 

engine loads could be managed in a way 

which reduces the combined emissions 

of the consist, and in what way our 

program can be set up to encourage such 

reductions. Consists are commonly used 

in long trains to achieve the power and 

traction levels necessary to move, stop, 

and control the train. The trailing 

locomotives can be directly-coupled to 

the lead locomotive, or, they may be 

placed anywhere along the train and 

controlled remotely by the lead. The 

load settings of the individual 

locomotives that make up a consist are 

not always equal—for example, if the 

train has crested a hill, the leading 

locomotive(s) could be operating under 

dynamic brake (to control the speed of 

the train) while the trailing locomotives 

could be producing propulsion power 

(to reduce strain on the couplers). 

Depending on the load, track, terrain, 

and weather conditions, it is 

conceivable that the engine loads of a 

consist could be managed to provide the 

lowest fuel consumption for the power/ 

traction needed. For example, the train 

power can be distributed so that the 

lead engine is operating at its optimum 

brake-specific fuel consumption point 

while trailing engines are operated at 

reduced power settings and/or shut 

down. The capability to manage and 

distribute engine power in a locomotive 

consist is available on the market today. 

We have been made aware that it may 

be possible to optimize the 

configuration of locomotives in a consist 

for emissions performance without 

compromising other key goals such as 

fuel economy and safety. Our proposed 

regulations do not explicitly take such 

possible optimization into account. 

However, if commenters believe that 

significant emission reductions can be 

attained by controlling the engine loads 

in a consist (beyond those attained by 

the current practice of operating the 

consist to achieve the lowest fuel 

consumption rate), we would solicit 

their views on how to calculate the 

emissions reduction and on how the inuse operation of the consist could be 

logged and reported. For example, it 

may be appropriate to allow a 

manufacturer to use alternative notch 

weightings tailored to operation in an 

emissions-optimized consist in 

demonstrating compliance with the 

emissions standards, thus providing 

added flexibility in designing such 

locomotives to meet the standards. 

(2) Marine Standards 

We are also proposing new emissions 

standards for newly-built marine diesel 

engines with displacements under 30 

liters per cylinder, including those used 

in commercial, recreational, and 

auxiliary power applications. As for 

locomotives, our ANPRM described a 

one-step marine diesel program that 

would bring about the introduction of 

high-efficiency exhaust aftertreatment in 

this sector. Just as for locomotives, our 

analyses of the technical issues related 

to the application of aftertreatment 

technologies to marine engines, 

informed by our many discussions with 

stakeholders, have resulted in a 

proposal for new standards in multiple 

steps, focused especially on the engines 

with the greatest potential for large PM 

and NOX emission reductions. Our 

technical analyses are summarized in 

section III.D and are detailed in the draft 

RIA. 

In contrast to the locomotive sector, 

the marine diesel sector covered by this 

rule is quite diverse. Commercial 

propulsion applications range from 

small fishing boats to Great Lakes 

freighters. Recreational propulsion 

applications range from sailboats to 

super-yachts. Similarly, auxiliary power 

applications range from small gensets, 

to generators used on barges, to large 

power-generating units used on oceangoing vessels. Many of the propulsion 

engines are used to propel high-speed 

planing boats, both commercial and 

recreational, where low weight and high 

power density are critically important. 

Some engines are situated in crowded 

engine compartments accessed through 

a hatch in the deck, while others occupy 

relatively spacious engine rooms. All of 

them share a high premium on 

reliability, considering the potentially 

serious ramifications of engine failure 

while underway. 

The resulting diversity in engine 

design characteristics is 

correspondingly large. Sizes range from 

a few horsepower to thousands of 

horsepower. Historically, we have 

categorized marine engines for 

standards-setting purposes based on 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15975 

cylinder displacements: C1 engines of 

less than 5 liters/cylinder, C2 from 5 to 

30 liters/cylinder, and Category 3 (C3) at 

greater than 30 liters/cylinder. (These 

C3 engines typically power oceancrossing ships and burn residual fuel; 

we are not including such engines in 

this proposal). Our past standard-setting 

efforts have found it helpful to make 

further distinctions as well, considering 

small (less than 37 kW (50 hp)) engines 

and C1 recreational engines as separate 

categories. 

Recreational engines typically power 

recreational vessels designed primarily 

for speed, and this imposes certain 

constraints on the type of engine they 

can use. For a marine vessel to reach 

high speeds, it is necessary to reduce 

the surface contact between the vessel 

and the water, and consequently these 

vessels typically operate in a planing 

mode. Planing imposes important 

design requirements, calling for low 

vessel weight and short periods of very 

high power— and thus prompting a 

need for high power density engines. 

The tradeoff is less durability, and 

recreational engines are correspondingly 

warranted for fewer hours of operation 

than commercial marine engines. These 

special characteristics are represented in 

EPA duty-cycle and useful life 

provisions for recreational marine 

engines. 

Unlike the locomotive sector, the vast 

majority of marine diesel engines are 

derivatives of land-based nonroad diesel 

engines. Marine diesel engine sales are 

significantly lower (by 10 or even 100 

fold) than the sales of the land-based 

nonroad engines from which they are 

derived. For this reason, changes to 

marine engine technology typically 

follow the changes made to the parent 

nonroad engine. For example, it may be 

economically infeasible to develop and 

introduce a new fuel system for a 

marine diesel engine with sales of 100 

units annually, while being desirable to 

do so for a land-based nonroad diesel 

engine with sales of 10,000 or more 

units annually. Further, having 

developed a new technology for landbased diesel engines, it is often cheaper 

to simply apply the new technology to 

the marine diesel engine rather than 

continuing to carry a second set of 

engine parts within a manufacturing 

system for a marginal number of 

additional sales. Recognizing this 

reality, our proposed marine standards 

are phased in to follow the introduction 

of similar engine technology standards 

from our Nonroad Tier 4 emissions 

program. In most cases, the 

corresponding marine diesel standards 

will follow the Nonroad Tier 4 

standards by one to two years. 

We are proposing to retain the percylinder displacement approach to 

establishing cutpoints for standards, but 

are revising and refining it in several 

places to ensure that the appropriate 

standards apply to every group of 

engines in this very diverse sector, and 

to provide for an orderly phase-in of the 

program to spread out the redesign 

workload burden: 

(1) We are proposing to move the C1/ 

C2 cutpoint from 5 liters/cylinder to 7 

liters/cylinder, because the latter is a 

more accurate cutpoint between today’s 

high- and medium-speed diesels (in 

terms of revolutions per minute (rpm)), 

with their correspondingly different 

emissions characteristics. 

(2) We also propose to revise the percylinder displacement cutpoints within 

Category 1 to better refine the 

application of standards. 

(3) An additional differentiation is 

proposed between high power density 

engines typically used in planing 

vessels and standard power density 

engines, with a cutpoint between them 

set at 35 kW/liter (47 hp/liter). In 

addition to recreational vessels, the high 

power-density engines are used in some 

commercial vessels, including certain 

kinds of crew boats, research vessels, 

and fishing vessels. Unlike most 

commercial vessels, these vessels are 

built for higher speed, which allows 

them to reach research fields, oil 

platforms, or fishing beds more quickly. 

This proposal addresses the technical 

challenges related to reducing emissions 

from engines with high power density. 

(4) In the past, we did not formally 

include marine diesels under 37 kW (50 

hp) in Category 1, but regulated them 

separately as part of the nonroad engine 

program, referring to them elsewhere as 

‘‘small marine engines’’. They are 

typically marinized land-based nonroad 

diesel engines. Because we are now 

proposing to include these engines in 

the current marine diesel rulemaking, 

this distinction is no longer needed and 

so we are including these engines in 

Category 1 for Tier 3 and Tier 4 

standards. 

(5) Finally, we would further group 

engines by total rated power, especially 

in regard to setting appropriate longterm aftertreatment-based standards. 

Note that we are retaining the 

differentiation between recreational and 

non-recreational marine engines within 

Category 1 because there are differences 

in the proposed standards for them. 

Although this carefully targeted 

approach to standards-setting results in 

a somewhat complicated array of 

emissions standards, we believe it is 

justified because it maximizes overall 

emission reductions by ensuring the 

most stringent standards feasible for a 

given group of marine engines, and it 

also helps engine and vessel designers 

to implement the program in the most 

cost effective manner. The proposed 

standards and implementation 

schedules are shown on Tables III–4–7. 

Briefly summarized, the proposed 

marine diesel standards include 

stringent engine-based Tier 3 standards, 

phasing in over 2009–2014. In addition, 

the proposed standards include 

aftertreatment-based Tier 4 standards for 

engines at or above 600 kW (800 hp), 

phasing in over 2014–2017, except that 

Tier 4 would not apply to recreational 

engines under 2000 kW (2670 hp). For 

engines of power ratings not included in 

the Tier 3 and Tier 4 tables, the previous 

tier of standards (Tier 2 or Tier 3, 

respectively) continues to apply. 

TABLE III–4.—PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C1 COMMERCIAL STANDARD POWER DENSITY

Rated kW L/cylinder PM 

g/bhp-hr 

NOX+HC 

g/bhp-hr Model year 

<19 kW ..................................................................................................................... <0.9 0.30 5.6 2009 

19–<75 kW ............................................................................................................... a <0.9 0.22 5.6 2009 b 0.22 b 3.5 2014 

75–3700 kW ............................................................................................................. <0.9 0.10 4.0 2012 

0.9–<1.2 0.09 4.0 2013 

1.2–<2.5 c 0.08 4.2 2014 

2.5–<3.5 c 0.08 4.2 2013 

3.5–<7.0 c 0.08 4.3 2012 

a <75 kW engines at or above 0.9 L/cylinder are subject to the corresponding 75–3700 kW standards. bOption: 0.15 PM/4.3 NOX in 2014. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15976 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

cThis standard level drops to 0.07 in 2018 for <600 kW engines. 

TABLE III–5.—PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C1 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL HIGH POWER

DENSITY

Rated kW L/cylinder PM 

g/bhp-hr 

NOX+HC 

g/bhp-hr Model year 

<19 kW ..................................................................................................................... <0.9 0.30 5.6 2009 

19–<75 kW ............................................................................................................... a <0.9 0.22 5.6 2009 b 0.22 b 3.5 2014 

<0.9 0.11 4.3 2012 

75—3700 kW ........................................................................................................... 0.9–<1.2 0.10 4.3 2013 

1.2–<2.5 0.09 4.3 2014 

2.5–<3.5 0.09 4.3 2013 

3.5–<7.0 0.09 4.0 2012 

a <75 kW engines at or above 0.9 L/cylinder are subject to the corresponding 75–3700 kW standards. bOption: 0.15 PM/4.3 NOX+HC in 2014. 

TABLE III–6.—PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C2 

Rated kW L/cylinder PM g/bhp-hr NOX+HC 

g/bhp-hr Model year 

=<3700 kW .............................................................................................................. 7–<15 0.10 4.6 2013 

15–<20 a 0.20 a 6.5 2014 

20–<25 0.20 7.3 2014 

25–<30 0.20 8.2 2014 

aFor engines at or below 3300 kW in this group, the PM/NOX+HC Tier 3 standards are 0.25/5.2. 

TABLE III–7.—PROPOSED TIER 4 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C1 AND C2 

Rated kW PM g/bhp-hr NOX g/bhphr HC g/bhp-hr Model year 

>3700 kW ................................................................................................................. a 0.09 1.3 0.14 2014 

0.04 1.3 0.14 b 2016 

1400–3700 kW ......................................................................................................... 0.03 1.3 0.14 c 2016 

600–<1400 kW ......................................................................................................... 0.03 1.3 0.14 b 2017 

aThis standard is 0.19 for engines with 15–30 liter/cylinder displacement. bOptional compliance start dates are proposed within these model years; see discussion below. 

cOption for engines with 7–15 liter/cylinder displacement: Tier 4 PM and HC in 2015 and Tier 4 NOX in 2017. 

The proposed Tier 3 standards for 

engines with rated power less than 75 

kW (100 hp) are based on the nonroad 

diesel Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards, 

because these smaller marine engines 

are largely derived from (and often 

nearly identical to) the nonroad engine 

designs. The relatively straightforward 

carry-over nature of this approach also 

allows for an early implementation 

schedule, model year 2009, providing 

substantial early benefits to the 

program. However, some of the less than 

75 kW nonroad engines are also subject 

to aftertreatment-based Tier 4 nonroad 

standards, and our proposal would not 

carry these over into the marine sector, 

due to vessel design and operational 

constraints discussed in Section III.D. 

Because of the preponderance of both 

direct- and indirect-injection diesel 

engines in the 19 to 75 kW (25–100 hp) 

engine market today, we are proposing 

two options available to manufacturers 

for meeting Tier 3 standards on any 

engine in this range, as indicated in 

Table III–4. One option focuses on lower 

PM and the other on lower NOX, though 

both require substantial reductions in 

both PM and NOX and would take effect 

in 2014. 

With important exceptions, we 

propose that marine diesel engines at or 

above 75 kW (100 hp) be subject to new 

emissions standards in two steps, Tier 3 

and Tier 4. The proposed Tier 3 

standards are based on the engine-out 

emission reduction potential of the 

nonroad Tier 4 diesel engines which 

will be introduced beginning in 2011. 

Tier 3 standards for C1 engines would 

generally take effect in 2012, though for 

some engines, they would start in 2013 

or 2014. We are not basing our proposed 

marine Tier 3 emission standards on the 

existing nonroad Tier 3 emission 

standards for two reasons. First, the 

nonroad Tier 3 engines will be replaced 

beginning in 2011 with nonroad Tier 4 

engines, and given the derivative nature 

of marine diesel manufacturing, we 

believe it is more appropriate to use 

those Tier 4 engine capabilities as the 

basis for the proposed marine standards. 

Second, the advanced fuel and 

combustion systems that we expect 

these Tier 4 nonroad engines to apply 

will allow approximately a 50 percent 

reduction in PM when compared to the 

reduction potential of the nonroad Tier 

3 engines. The proposed Tier 3 

standards levels would vary slightly, 

from 0.08 to 0.11 g/bhp-hr (0.11 to 0.15 

g/kW-hr) for PM and from 4.0 to 4.3 g/ 

bhp-hr (5.4 to 5.8 g/kW-hr) for NOX+HC. 

Tier 3 standards for C2 engines would 

take effect in 2013 or 2014, depending 

on engine displacement, and standards 

levels would also vary, from 0.10 to 0.25 

g/bhp-hr (0.14 to 0.34 g/kW-hr) for PM 

and 4.6 to 8.2 g/bhp-hr (6.2 to 11.0 g/ 

kW-hr) for NOX+HC. For the largest C2 

engines, those above 3700 kW (4900 

hp), the NOX+HC standard would 

remain at the Tier 2 levels until Tier 4 

begins for these engines in 2014. 

We are proposing that high-efficiency 

aftertreatment-based Tier 4 standards be 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15977 

applied to all commercial and auxiliary 

C1 and C2 engines over 600 kW (800 

hp). These standards would phase in 

over 2014–2017. Marine diesels over 

600 kW, though fewer in number, are 

the workhorses of the inland waterway 

and intercoastal marine industry, 

running at high load factors, for many 

hours a day, over decades of heavy use. 

As a result they also account for the 

very large majority of marine diesel 

engine emissions. However, for engines 

at or below 600 kW, our technical 

analysis indicates that applying 

aftertreatment to them appears at this 

time not to be feasible. There are many 

reasons for this preliminary conclusion, 

varying in relative importance with 

engine size and application, but 

generally including insufficient space in 

below-deck engine compartments, 

catalyst packaging limitations for waterinjected exhaust systems, poor catalyst 

performance in water-jacketed exhaust 

systems, and weight constraints in 

planing hull vessels. 

Although with time and investment 

these issues may be resolvable for some 

under 600 kW (800 hp) applications, we 

are not, at this time, proposing Tier 4 

standards for these engines. We may do 

so at some point in the future, such as 

after the successful prove-out of 

aftertreatment in the larger marine 

engines and in nonroad diesel engines 

have established a clearer technology 

path for extension to these engines. The 

approach taken in this proposal 

concentrates Tier 4 design and 

development efforts into the engine and 

vessel applications where they can do 

the most good. 

We are confident that there is a subset 

of recreational vessels that are large 

enough to accommodate the added size 

of engines equipped with aftertreatment 

and that have appropriate maintenance 

procedures to ensure that the 

aftertreatment systems are appropriately 

maintained, for example, because they 

have a professional crew as opposed to 

being maintained by the owner. Based 

on a review of publicly available sales 

literature, we believe that at least the 

subset of recreational vessels with 

engines at rated power above 2000 kW 

(2760 hp) have the space and design 

layout conducive to aftertreatment and 

professional crews such that 

aftertreatment-based standards are 

feasible. Therefore, we are proposing to 

apply the Tier 4 standards to 

recreational marine diesel engines at 

rated power above 2000 kW, but we 

request comment on whether this is the 

appropriate threshold, along with any 

available information supporting the 

commenter’s view. We also request 

comment on the issue of ULSD 

availability for these vessels in places 

that they may visit outside the United 

States. The rapid pace at which the 

industrial nations are shifting to ULSD 

has surpassed expectations. By no 

means does this ensure its availability 

in every port that might be frequented 

by large U.S. yachts, but it does give 

confidence that ULSD will be a global 

product, and certainly not confined to 

the coastal U.S. when Tier 4 yachts 

begin to appear in 2016. These large 

yachts are operated by professional 

crews who plan their itineraries ahead 

of time and are unlikely to put in for 

fuel without checking out the facility 

ahead of time, though quite possibly 

this may require somewhat more 

diligence in the early years of the 

program while the ULSD-needing fleet 

is ramping up in size. We also expect 

that, from the marinas’ perspective, 

those frequented by these affluent 

visitors typically covet this business 

today, and will likely be reticent to 

leave ULSD off the list of offerings and 

amenities aimed at attracting them. 

We are setting the Tier 4 standards for 

most engines above 600 kW (800 hp) at 

0.03 g/bhp-hr (0.04 g/kW-hr) for PM, 

based on the use of PM filters, and 1.3 

g/bhp-hr (1.8 g/kW-hr) for NOX based on 

the use of urea SCR systems. The largest 

marine diesel engines, those above 3700 

kW (4900 hp), would be subject to this 

SCR-based NOX standard in 2014, along 

with a new engine-based PM standard. 

The Tier 4 PM standard for these 

engines would then start in 2016, with 

the addition of a filter-based 0.04 g/bhphr (0.06 g/kW-hr) standard. See section 

III.C(3) for a discussion of the Tier 4 HC 

standard. 

Note that the implementation 

schedule in the above marine standards 

tables is expressed in terms of model 

years, consistent with past practice and 

the format of our regulations. However, 

in two cases we believe it is appropriate 

to provide a manufacturer the option to 

delay compliance somewhat, as long as 

the standards are implemented within 

the indicated model year. Specifically, 

we are proposing to allow a 

manufacturer to delay Tier 4 

compliance within the 2017 model year 

for 600–1000 kW (800–1300 hp) engines 

by up to 9 months (but no later than 

October 1, 2017) and, for Tier 4 PM, 

within the 2016 model year for over 

3700 kW (4900 hp) engines by up to 12 

months (but no later than December 31, 

2016). We consider this option to delay 

implementation appropriate in order to 

give some flexibility in spreading the 

implementation workload and ensure a 

smooth transition to the long-term Tier 

4 program. 

The proposed Tier 4 standards for 

locomotives and C2 diesel marine 

engines of comparable size are at the 

same numerical levels but differ 

somewhat in implementation schedule, 

with locomotive Tier 4 starting in 2015 

for PM and 2017 for NOX, and diesel 

marine Tier 4 for both PM and NOX

starting in 2016 (for engines in the 

1400–3700 kW (1900–4900 hp) range). 

We consider these implementation 

schedules to be close enough to warrant 

our providing an option to meet either 

schedule for these marine engines, 

aimed at facilitating the development of 

engines for both markets, a common 

practice today. Because the locomotive 

Tier 4 phase-in is offset by only one year 

on either side of the marine Tier 4 2016 

date, we do not expect this option to 

introduce major competitiveness issues 

between manufacturers who will be 

designing engines for both markets and 

those who will be designing for only the 

marine market. Furthermore, we see no 

reason to make this option available 

only those who make locomotive 

products, and are therefore proposing its 

availability to any manufacturer. 

Comment is requested on the need for 

the option, and on whether it should be 

limited to a particular subset of engines. 

We note too that the Tier 3 marine 

standards for locomotive-like marine 

engines (that is, in the 7–15 liters/ 

cylinder group) although having the 

same implementation date and 

numerical PM standard level as 

locomotive Tier 3, includes a 4.6 g/bhphr (6.1 g/kW-hr) NOX+HC standard, 

compared to the 5.5 g/bhp-hr (7.3 g/kWhr) NOX standard for locomotive Tier 3. 

We request comment on whether some 

provision is needed to avoid the need 

for designing an engine primarily used 

in locomotives to meet the marine 

standard in order to have both ready for 

Tier 3, on whether sufficient ABT 

credits are likely to be available to deal 

with this, and on how to ensure we do 

not lose environmental benefits or 

inadvertently create competitiveness 

problems. 

Some marine engine families include 

engines of the same basic design and 

emissions performance but achieving 

widely varying power ratings in engine 

models marketed through varying the 

number of cylinders, for example 8 to 

20. These families can and do straddle 

power cutpoints, most notably at the 

3700 kW (4900 hp) cutpoint, above 

which NOX aftertreatment is expected to 

be needed in 2014 under our proposed 

standards, and at the 600 kW (800 hp) 

cutpoint for application of the proposed 

Tier 4 standards. We understand that 

manufacturers have concerns about 

additional design and certification work 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15978 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

needed for an engine family falling into 

two categories, especially with regard to 

the 600 and 3700 kW cutpoints which 

involve very different standards or start 

dates on either side of the cutpoint. We 

request comment on whether this 

concern is a serious one for the 

manufacturers, on suggestions for how 

to address it fairly without a loss of 

environmental benefit, and on whether 

our not addressing it would cause 

undesirable shifts in ratings offered in 

the market in order to stay on one side 

or the other of the cutpoints. One 

particular idea on which we request 

comment is allowing engines above 

3700 kW an option to meet the Tier 4 

PM requirement in 2014 and the Tier 4 

NOX requirement December 31, 2016, 

similar to the less than 3700 kW option 

discussed above. 

We are concerned that applying the 

Tier 4 standards to engines above 600 

kW (800 hp) may create an incentive for 

vessel builders who would normally use 

engines greater than 600 kW to instead 

use a larger number of smaller engines 

in a vessel to get the equivalent power 

output. Generally, the choice of engines 

for a vessel is directly a function of the 

work that vessel is intended to do. 

There may be cases, however, in which 

a vessel designer that might have used, 

for example, two 630 kW engines, 

chooses instead to use three 420 kW 

engines to avoid the Tier 4 standards. 

We have concerns about the 

environmental impacts of such a result. 

There also may be competitiveness 

concerns. Therefore, we are seeking 

comment on whether substitution of 

several smaller engines for one or two 

larger engines is likely to occur as a 

result of differential standards, and on 

what can be done to avoid it. For 

example, the Tier 4 standards could be 

applied to engines in multi-engine 

vessels with a total power above a 

certain threshold, such as 1100 kW 

(1500 hp). We recognize that this would 

result in a need to equip engines 

somewhat below 600 kW with 

aftertreatment devices, but we believe 

the feasibility concerns such as space 

constraints discussed above for engines 

below this cutpoint are diminished in 

multi-engine vessel designs. 

Alternatively, we could require vessel 

manufacturers seeking to use more than 

two engines to make a demonstration to 

us that they are not attempting to 

circumvent the aftertreatment-based 

requirements, for example by showing 

that the vessel design they are using 

traditionally incorporates three or more 

engines or that there is a specific design 

requirement that leads to the use of 

several smaller engines. A third option 

would be to base the Tier 4 standards 

on the size (or other characteristics) of 

the vessel, for vessels that have two or 

more propulsion engines. Commenters 

on this issue should address the 

feasibility and potential market impacts 

of these potential solutions and are 

asked to offer their own suggestions as 

well. 

(3) Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and 

Smoke Standards 

We are not proposing new standards 

for CO. Emissions of CO are typically 

relatively low in diesel engines today 

compared to non-diesel pollution 

sources. Furthermore, among diesel 

application sectors, locomotives and 

marine diesel engines are already 

subject to relatively stringent CO 

standards in Tier 2—essentially 1.5 and 

3.7 g/bhp-hr, respectively, compared to 

the current heavy-duty highway diesel 

engine CO standard of 15.5 g/bhp-hr. 

Therefore, under our proposal, the Tier 

3 and Tier 4 CO standards for all 

locomotives and marine diesel engines 

would remain at current Tier 2 levels 

and remanufactured Tier 0, 1 and 2 

locomotives would likewise continue to 

be subject to the existing CO standards 

for each of these tiers. Although we are 

not setting more stringent standards for 

CO in Tier 4, we note that aftertreatment 

devices using precious metal catalysts 

that we project will be employed to 

meet Tier 4 PM, NOX and HC standards 

would provide meaningful reductions in 

CO emissions as well. 

As discussed in section II, HC 

emissions, often characterized as VOCs, 

are precursors to ozone formation, and 

include compounds that EPA considers 

to be air toxics. As for CO, emissions of 

HC are typically relatively low in diesel 

engines today compared to non-diesel 

sources. However, in contrast to CO 

standards, the line-haul locomotive Tier 

2 HC standard of 0.30 g/bhp-hr, though 

comparable to emissions from other 

diesel applications in Tier 2 and Tier 3, 

is more than twice that of the long-term 

0.14 g/bhp-hr standard set for both the 

heavy-duty highway 2007 and nonroad 

Tier 4 programs. For marine diesel 

engines the Tier 2 HC standard is 

expressed as part of a combined 

NOX+HC standard varying by engine 

size between 5.4 and 8.2 g/bhp-hr, 

which clearly allows for high HC levels. 

Our proposed more stringent Tier 3 

NOX+HC standards for marine diesel 

engines would likely provide some 

reduction in HC emissions, but we 

expect that the catalyzed exhaust 

aftertreatment devices used to meet the 

proposed Tier 4 locomotive and marine 

NOX and PM standards would 

concurrently provide very sizeable 

reductions in HC emissions. Therefore, 

in accordance with the Clean Air Act 

section 213 provisions outlined in 

section I.B(3) of this preamble, we are 

proposing that the 0.14 g/hp-hr HC 

standard apply for locomotives and 

marine diesel engines in Tier 4 as well. 

We are proposing that the existing 

form of the HC standards be retained 

through Tier 3. That is, locomotive and 

marine HC standards would remain in 

the form of total hydrocarbons (THC), 

except for gaseous- and alcohol-fueled 

engines (See 40 CFR § 92.8 and § 94.8). 

Consistent with this, the Tier 3 marine 

NOX+HC standards are proposed to be 

based on THC, except that Tier 3 

standards for less than 75 kW (100 hp) 

engines would be based on NMHC, 

consistent with their basis in the 

nonroad engine program. However, we 

propose that the Tier 4 HC standards be 

expressed as NMHC standards, 

consistent with aftertreatment-based 

standards adopted for highway and 

nonroad diesel engines. 

As in the case of other diesel mobile 

sources, we believe that existing smoke 

standards are of diminishing usefulness 

as PM levels drop to very low levels, as 

engines with PM at these levels emit 

very little or no visible smoke. We are 

therefore proposing to drop the smoke 

standards for locomotives and marine 

engines for any engines certified to a PM 

family emission limit (FEL) or standard 

of 0.05 g/bhp-hr (0.07 g/kW-hr) or 

lower. This allows engines certified to 

Tier 4 PM or to an FEL slightly above 

Tier 4 to avoid unnecessary testing for 

smoke. 

D. Are the Proposed Standards 

Feasible? 

In this section we describe the 

feasibility of the various emissions 

control technologies we project would 

be used to meet the standards proposed 

today. Because of the range of engines 

and applications we cover in this 

proposal, and because of the technology 

that will be available to them for 

emissions control, our proposed 

standards span a range of emissions 

levels. We have identified a number of 

different emissions control technologies 

we would expect to be used to meet the 

proposed standards. These technologies 

range from incremental improvements 

to existing engine components for the 

proposed remanufacturing program to 

highly advanced catalytic exhaust 

treatment systems similar to those 

expected to be used to control emissions 

from heavy-duty diesel trucks and 

nonroad equipment. 

In this section we first describe the 

feasibility of emissions control 

technologies we project would be used 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15979 

to meet the standards we are proposing 

for existing engines that are 

remanufactured as new (i.e., Tier 0, Tier 

1, Tier 2). We also describe how these 

same technologies would be applied to 

meet our proposed interim standards for 

new engines (i.e., Tier 3). We conclude 

this section with a discussion of 

catalytic exhaust treatment technologies 

projected to be used to meet our 

proposed Tier 4 standards. A more 

detailed analysis of these technologies 

and the issues related to their 

application to locomotive and marine 

diesel engines can be found in the draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). 

(1) Emissions Control Technologies for 

Remanufactured Engine Standards and 

for New Tier 3 Engine Standards 

In the locomotive sector, emissions 

standards already exist for engines that 

are remanufactured as new. Some of 

these engines were originally 

unregulated (i.e. Tier 0), and others 

were originally built to earlier emissions 

standards (Tier 1 and Tier 2). We are 

proposing more stringent standards for 

these engines that apply whenever the 

locomotives are remanufactured as new. 

Our proposed remanufactured standards 

apply to locomotive engines that were 

originally built as early as 1973. 

We project that incremental 

improvements to existing engine 

components would be feasible to meet 

our proposed locomotive 

remanufactured engine standards. In 

many cases, similar improvements to 

these have already been implemented 

on newly built locomotives to meet our 

current new locomotive standards. To 

meet the lower NOX standard proposed 

for the Tier 0 locomotive 

remanufacturing program, we expect 

that improvements in fuel system 

design, engine calibration and 

optimization of existing after-cooling 

systems may be used to reduce NOX

from the current 9.5 g/bhp-hr Tier 0 

standard to 7.4 g/bhp-hr. These are the 

same technologies used to meet the 

current Tier 1 NOX emission standard of 

7.4 g/bhp-hr. In essence, locomotive 

manufacturers will duplicate current 

Tier 1 locomotive NOX emission 

solutions and adapt those same 

solutions to the portion of the existing 

Tier 0 fleet that can accommodate them. 

For older Tier 0 locomotives 

manufactured without separate-circuit 

cooling systems for intake air charge air 

cooling, reaching the Tier 1 NOX level 

will not be possible. For these engines 

8.0 g/hp-hr NOX emissions represents 

the lowest achievable level. 

To meet all of our proposed PM 

standards for the remanufacturing 

program and for the new locomotive 

Tier 3 interim standard, we expect that 

lubricating oil consumption controls 

will be implemented, along with the 

ultra low sulfur diesel fuel requirement 

for locomotive engines (which was 

previously finalized in our nonroad 

clean diesel rulemaking). Because of the 

significant fraction of lubricating oil 

present in PM from today’s locomotives, 

we believe that existing low-oilconsumption piston ring-pack designs, 

when used in conjunction with 

improvements to closed crankcase 

ventilation systems, will provide 

significant, near-term PM reductions. 

These technologies can be applied to all 

locomotive engines, including those 

built as far back as 1973. And based 

upon our on-highway and nonroad 

clean diesel experience, we also believe 

that the use of ultra low sulfur diesel 

fuel in the locomotive sector will assist 

in meeting the Tier 2 remanufacturing 

and Tier 3 PM standards. We believe 

that the combination of reduced sulfate 

PM and improvement of oil and 

crankcase emission control to near Tier 

3 nonroad or 2007 heavy-duty onhighway levels will provide an 

approximately 50% reduction in PM 

emissions. 

We believe that some fraction of the 

remanufacturing systems can be 

developed and certified as early as 2008, 

so we are proposing the required usage 

of Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission 

control systems as soon as they are 

available starting in 2008. However, we 

estimate that it will take approximately 

3 years to complete the development 

and certification process for all of the 

Tier 0 and Tier 1 emission control 

systems, so we have proposed full 

implementation of the Tier 0 and Tier 

1 remanufactured engine standards in 

2010. We base this lead time on the 

types of technology that we expect to be 

implemented, and on the amount of 

lead time locomotive manufacturers 

needed to certify similar systems for our 

current remanufacturing program. The 

new engine changes necessary to meet 

the Tier 3 and remanufactured Tier 2 

PM emission standards will require 

additional engine changes leading us to 

propose an implementation date for 

those engines of 2012 for Tier 3 engines 

and 2013 for remanufactured Tier 2 

engines. These changes include further 

improvements to ring pack designs—

especially for two-stroke engines, and 

the implementation of high efficiency 

crankcase ventilation systems. These 

technologies are described and 

illustrated in detail in our draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

In the marine sector, emissions 

standards do not currently exist for 

engines that are remanufactured as new. 

In today’s proposal, we are requesting 

comment on a marine diesel engine 

remanufacturing program that would 

apply to some of these marine engines 

whenever they are remanufactured as 

new (see section VII.A(2)). Because we 

are requesting comment on a marine 

engine remanufacturing program that 

essentially parallels our locomotive 

remanufacturing program, we expect 

that the same emissions control 

technologies described above would be 

implemented for remanufactured 

marine diesel engines just as for 

remanufactured locomotive engines. 

We are proposing more stringent 

emissions standards for all newly built 

marine diesel engines that have a 

displacement of less than thirty liters 

per cylinder. For marine diesel engines 

that are either used in recreational 

vessels or are rated to produce less than 

600 kW of power, we are proposing 

emissions standards that likely would 

not require the use of catalytic exhaust 

treatment technology. We are also 

proposing similar standards, as interim 

standards, for marine diesel engines that 

are used in commercial vessels and are 

rated to produce 600 kW of power or 

more (except if greater than 3700 kW). 

Collectively, we refer to these standards 

as our Tier 3 marine diesel engine 

standards. 

To meet our proposed Tier 3 marine 

diesel engine standards, we believe that 

engine manufacturers will utilize 

incremental improvements to existing 

engine components. To meet the lower 

NOX standards we expect that 

improvements in fuel system design and 

engine calibration will be implemented. 

For Category 1 engines from 75 kW 

through 560 kW, these technologies 

would be similar to designs and 

calibrations that likely will be used to 

meet our nonroad Tier 4 standards for 

engines. For Category 1 engines below 

75 kW and greater than 560kW, and for 

Category 2 engines that have cylinder 

displacements less than 15 L/cylinder, 

these technologies are similar to designs 

that will be used to meet our nonroad 

Tier 3 standards, and our proposed 

locomotive Tier 3 standards. 

In almost all instances, marine diesel 

engines are derivative of land based 

nonroad engines or locomotive engines. 

In order to meet our nonroad Tier 4 

emission levels (phased in from 2011–

2015), nonroad engines will see 

significant base engine improvements 

designed to reduce engine-out 

emissions. Refer to our nonroad Tier 4 

rulemaking for details on the designs 

and calibrations we expect to be used to 

meet the Tier 3 standards we are 

proposing for the lower horsepower 

marine engines. For example, we expect 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15980 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

103 ‘‘Diesel Particulate Filter Maintenance: 

Current Practices and Experience’’, Manufacturers 

of Emission Controls Association, June 2005, http:// 

meca.org/galleries/default-file/ 

Filter_Maintenance_White_Paper_605_final.pdf. 

104 Jacob, E., La ̈mmerman, R., Pappenheimer, A., 

Rothe, D. ‘‘Exhaust Gas Aftertreatment System for 

Euro 4 Heavy-duty Engines’’, MTZ, June, 2006. 

105Smith, B., Sneed, W., Fritz, S. ‘‘AAR 

Locomotive Emissions Testing 2005 Final Report’’. 

marine engines to utilize high-pressure, 

common-rail fuel injection systems or 

improvements in unit injector design. 

When such fuel system improvements 

are used in conjunction with engine 

mapping and calibration optimization, 

the Tier 3 marine diesel engine 

standards can be met. Since this 

technology and these components 

already have been implemented on onhighway, nonroad, and some locomotive 

engines, they can be applied to marine 

engines beginning as early as 2009. 

Because some marine engines are not 

as similar to on-highway, nonroad or 

locomotive engines as others, we believe 

that full implementation of these 

technologies for marine engines cannot 

be accomplished until 2012. We expect 

that the PM emissions control 

technologies that will be used to meet 

our proposed Tier 3 marine diesel 

engine standards will be similar to the 

technology used to meet our nonroad 

Tier 3 PM standards and our proposed 

locomotive Tier 3 PM standards. That is, 

we believe that a combination of fuel 

injection improvements, plus the use of 

existing low-oil-consumption piston 

ring-pack designs and improved closed 

crankcase ventilation systems will 

provide significant PM reductions. And 

based upon our on-highway and nonroad clean diesel experience, we also 

believe that the use of ultra low sulfur 

diesel fuel in the marine sector will 

assist in meeting the Tier 3 PM 

standards. 

Because all of the aforementioned 

technologies to reduce NOX and PM 

emissions can be developed for 

production, certified, and introduced 

into the marine engine sector without 

extended lead-time, we believe that 

these technologies can be implemented 

for some engines as early as 2009, and 

for all engines by 2014. We believe that 

this later date is needed only for those 

marine engines that are not similar to 

other on-highway, nonroad, or 

locomotive engines. 

(2) Catalytic Exhaust Treatment 

Technologies for New Engines 

For marine diesel engines in 

commercial service that are greater than 

600 kW, for all marine engines greater 

than 2000 kW, and for all locomotives, 

we are proposing stringent Tier 4 

standards based on the use of advanced 

catalytic exhaust treatment systems to 

control both PM and NOX emissions. 

There are four main issues to address 

when analyzing the application of this 

technology to these new sources: the 

efficacy of the fundamental catalyst 

technology in terms of the percent 

reduction in emissions given certain 

engine conditions such as exhaust 

temperature; its applicability in terms of 

packaging; its long-term durability; and 

whether or not the technology 

significantly impacts an industry’s 

supply chain infrastructure—especially 

with respect to supplying urea reductant 

for SCR to locomotives and vessels. We 

have carefully examined these points, 

and based upon our analysis (detailed in 

our draft Regulatory Impact Analysis), 

we believe that we have identified 

robust PM and NOX catalytic exhaust 

treatment systems that are applicable to 

locomotives and marine engines that 

also pose a manageable impact on the 

rail and marine industries’

infrastructure. 

(a) Catalytic PM Emissions Control 

Technology 

The most effective exhaust 

aftertreatment used for diesel PM 

emissions control is the diesel 

particulate filter (DPF). More than a 

million light diesel vehicles that are 

OEM-equipped with DPF systems have 

been sold in Europe, and over 200,000 

DPF retrofits to diesel engines have been 

conducted worldwide.103 Broad 

application of catalyzed diesel 

particulate filter (CDPF) systems with 

greater than 90 percent PM control is 

beginning with the introduction of 2007 

model year heavy-duty diesel trucks in 

the United States. These systems use a 

combination of both passive and active 

soot regeneration. CDPF systems 

utilizing metal substrates are a further 

development that trades off a degree of 

elemental carbon soot control for 

reduced backpressure, improvements in 

the ability of the trap to clear oil ash, 

greater design freedom regarding filter 

size/shape, and greater robustness. 

Metal-CDPFs were initially introduced 

as passive-regeneration retrofit 

technologies for diesel engines designed 

to achieve approximately 60 percent 

control of PM emissions. Recent data 

from further development of these 

systems for Euro-4 truck applications 

has shown that metal-CDPF trapping 

efficiency for elemental carbon PM can 

exceed 70 percent for engines with 

inherently low elemental carbon 

emissions.104 Data from locomotive 

testing confirms a relatively low 

elemental carbon fraction and relatively 

high organic fraction for PM emissions 

from medium-speed Tier 2 locomotive 

engines.105 The use of an oxidizing 

catalyst with platinum group metals 

(PGM) coated directly to the CPDF 

combined with a diesel oxidation 

catalyst (DOC) mounted upstream of the 

CDPF would provide 95 percent or 

greater removal of HC, including the 

semi-volatile organic compounds that 

contribute to PM. Such systems would 

reduce overall PM emissions from a 

locomotive or marine diesel engine by 

upwards of 90 percent. 

We believe that locomotive and 

marine diesel engine manufacturers will 

benefit from the extensive development 

taking place to implement DPF 

technologies in advance of the heavyduty truck and nonroad PM standards in 

Europe and the U.S. Given the steadystate operating characteristics of 

locomotive and marine engines, DPF 

regeneration strategies will certainly be 

capable of precisely controlling PM 

under all conditions and passively 

regenerating whenever the exhaust gas 

temperature is >250 °C. Therefore, we 

believe that the Tier 4 PM standards we 

are proposing for locomotive and 

marine diesel engines are 

technologically feasible. And given the 

level of activity in the on-highway and 

nonroad sectors to implement DPF 

technology, we believe that our 

proposed implementation dates for 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

are appropriate and achievable. 

(b) Catalytic NOX Emissions Control 

Technology 

We have analyzed a variety of 

technologies available for NOX

reduction to determine their 

applicability to diesel engines in the 

locomotive and marine sectors. As 

described in more detail in our draft 

RIA, we are assuming locomotive and 

marine diesel engine manufacturers will 

choose to use—Selective Catalytic 

Reduction, or SCR to comply with our 

proposed standards. SCR is a commonly 

used aftertreatment device 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 

currently, European heavy-duty truck 

manufacturers are 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15981 

106 ‘‘Review of SCR Technologies for Diesel 

Emission Control: European Experience and 

Worldwide Perspectives,’’ presented by Dr. 

Emmanuel Joubert, 10th DEER Conference, July 

2004. 

107Lambert, C., ‘‘Technical Advantages of Urea 

SCR for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle 

Applications,’’ SAE Technical Paper 2004–01–1292, 

2004. 

108Walker, A.P. et al., ‘‘The Development and InField Demonstration of Highly Durable SCR 

Catalyst Systems,’’ SAE 2004–01–1289. 109Conway, R. et al., ‘‘Combined SCR and DPF 

Technology for Heavy Duty Diesel Retrofit,’’ SAE 

Technical Paper 2005–01–1862, 2005. 

110 ‘‘The Development and On-Road Performance 

and Durability of the Four-Way Emission Control 

SCRTTM System,’’ presented by Andy Walker, 9th 

DEER Conference, August 28, 2003. 

111Telephone conversation with Gary Keefe, 

Argillon, June 6, 2006. 

several of the Northeast states. However, 

by 2010, when 100 percent of the heavyduty diesel trucks are required to meet 

the NOX limits of the 2007 heavy-duty 

highway rule, several heavy-duty truck 

engine manufacturers have indicated 

that they will use SCR technology.106 107

While other promising NOX-reducing 

technologies such as lean NOX catalysts, 

NOX adsorbers, and advanced 

combustion control continue to be 

developed (and may be viable 

approaches to the standards we are 

proposing today), our analysis assumes 

that SCR will be the technology of 

choice in the locomotive and marine 

diesel engine sectors. 

An SCR catalyst reduces nitrogen 

oxides to elemental nitrogen (N2) and 

water by using ammonia (NH3) as the 

reducing agent. The most-common 

method for supplying ammonia to the 

SCR catalyst is to inject an aqueous 

urea-water solution into the exhaust 

stream. In the presence of hightemperature exhaust gasses (>200 °C), 

the urea hydrolyzes to form NH3 and 

CO2. The NH3 is stored on the surface 

of the SCR catalyst where it is used to 

complete the NOX-reduction reaction. In 

theory, it is possible to achieve 100 

percent NOX conversion if the NH3-toNOX ratio (a) is 1:1 and the space 

velocity within the catalyst is not 

excessive. However, given the space 

limitations in packaging exhaust 

aftertreatment devices in mobile 

applications, an a of 0.85–1.0 is often 

used to balance the need for high NOX

conversion rates against the potential for 

NH3 slip (where NH3 passes through the 

catalyst unreacted). The urea dosing 

strategy and the desired a are dependent 

on the conditions present in the exhaust 

gas; namely temperature and the 

quantity of NOX present (which can be 

determined by engine mapping, 

temperature sensors, and NOX sensors). 

Overall NOX conversion efficiency, 

especially under low-temperature 

exhaust gas conditions, can be improved 

by controlling the ratio of two NOX

species within the exhaust gas; NO2 and 

NO. This can be accomplished through 

use of an oxidation catalyst upstream of 

the SCR catalyst to promote the 

conversion of NO to NO2. The physical 

size and catalyst formulation of the 

oxidation catalyst are the principal 

factors that control the NO2-to-NO ratio, 

and by extension, improve the lowtemperature performance of the SCR 

catalyst. 

Recent studies have shown that an 

SCR system is capable of providing well 

in excess of 80 percent NOX reduction 

efficiency in high-power, diesel 

applications.108 thnsp109 thnsp;110

SCR catalysts can achieve significant 

NOX reduction throughout much of the 

exhaust gas temperature operating range 

observed in locomotive and marine 

applications. Collaborative research and 

development activities between diesel 

engine manufacturers, truck 

manufacturers, and SCR catalyst 

suppliers have also shown that SCR is 

a mature, cost-effective solution for NOX

reduction on diesel engines in other 

mobile sources. While many of the 

published studies have focused on 

highway truck applications, similar 

trends, operational characteristics, and 

NOX reduction efficiencies have been 

reported for marine and stationary 

applications as well.111 Given the 

preponderance of studies and data—and 

our analysis summarized here and 

detailed in the draft RIA—we believe 

that this technology is appropriate for 

locomotive and marine diesel 

applications. Furthermore, we believe 

that locomotive and marine diesel 

engine manufacturers will benefit from 

the extensive development taking place 

to implement SCR technologies in 

advance of the heavy-duty truck NOX

standards in Europe and the U.S. The 

urea dosing systems for SCR, already in 

widespread use across many different 

diesel applications, are expected to 

become more refined, robust, and 

reliable in advance of our proposed Tier 

4 locomotive and marine standards. 

Given the steady-state operating 

characteristics of locomotive and marine 

engines, SCR NOX control strategies will 

certainly be capable of precisely 

controlling NOX under all conditions 

whenever the exhaust gas temperature is 

greater than 150 °C. 

To ensure that we have the most upto-date information on urea SCR NOX

technologies and their application to 

locomotive and marine engines, we 

have met with a number of locomotive 

and marine engine manufacturers, as 

well as manufacturers of catalytic NOX

emissions control systems. Through our 

discussions we have learned that some 

engine manufacturers currently perceive 

some risk regarding urea injection 

accuracy and long-term catalyst 

durability, both of which could result in 

either less efficient NOX reduction or 

ammonia emissions. We have carefully 

investigated these issues, and we have 

concluded that accurate urea injection 

systems and durable catalysts already 

exist and have been applied to urea SCR 

NOX emissions control systems that are 

similar to those that we expect to be 

implemented in locomotive and marine 

applications. 

Urea injection systems applied to onhighway diesel trucks and diesel 

electric power generators already ensure 

accurate injection of urea, and these 

applications have similar—if not more 

dynamic—engine operation as 

compared to locomotive and marine 

engine operation. To ensure accurate 

urea injection across all engine 

operating conditions, these systems 

utilize NOX sensors to maintain closedloop feedback control of urea injection. 

These NOX sensor-based feedback 

control systems are similar to oxygen 

sensor-based systems that are used with 

catalytic converters on virtually every 

gasoline vehicle on the road today. We 

believe these NOX sensor based control 

systems are directly applicable to 

locomotive and marine engines. 

Ammonia emissions, which are 

already minimized through the use of 

closed-loop feedback urea injection, can 

be all-but-eliminated with an oxidation 

catalyst downstream of the SCR catalyst. 

Such catalysts are in use today and have 

been shown to be 95% effective at 

reducing ammonia emissions. 

Catalyst durability is affected by 

sulfur and other chemicals that can be 

present in some diesel fuel and 

lubricating oil. These chemicals have 

been eliminated in other applications by 

the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 

and low-SAPS (sulfated ash, 

phosphorous, and sulfur) lubricating oil. 

Locomotive and marine operators 

already will be using ultra low sulfur 

diesel by the time urea NOX SCR 

systems would be needed, and low 

SAPS oil can be used in locomotive and 

marine engines. Thermal and 

mechanical vibration durability of 

catalysts has been addressed through 

the selection of proper materials and the 

design of support and mounting 

structures that are capable of 

withstanding the shock and vibration 

levels present in locomotive and marine 

applications. More details on catalyst 

durability and urea injection accuracy 

are available in the remainder of this 

section and also in our draft RIA. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15982 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

112Conway, R. et al., ‘‘NOX and PM Reduction 

Using Combined SCR and DPF Technology in 

Heavy Duty Diesel Applications,’’ SAE Technical 

Paper 2005–01–3548, 2005. 

113 ‘‘AAR Manual of Standards and 

Recommended Practices,’’ Standard S–5510, 

Association of American Railroads. 

114Telephone conversation between Brian King, 

Elliot Bay Design Group, and Brian Nelson, EPA, 

July 24, 2006. 

Even though we believe that the 

issues of catalyst durability and urea 

injection accuracy have been addressed 

in existing NOX SCR emissions control 

systems, we invite comments and the 

submission of additional information 

and data regarding catalyst durability 

and urea injection accuracy. 

(c) Durability of Catalytic PM and NOX

Emissions Control Technology 

Published studies indicate that SCR 

systems should experience very little 

deterioration in NOX conversion 

throughout the life-cycle of a diesel 

engine.112 The principal mechanism of 

deterioration in an SCR catalyst is 

thermal sintering—the loss of catalyst 

surface area due to the melting and 

growth of active catalyst sites under 

high-temperature conditions (as the 

active sites melt and combine, the total 

number of active sites at which catalysis 

can occur is reduced). This effect can be 

minimized by design of the SCR catalyst 

washcoat and substrate for the exhaust 

gas temperature window in which it 

will operate. Another mechanism for 

catalyst deterioration is catalyst 

poisoning—the plugging and/or 

chemical de-activation of active 

catalytic sites. Phosphorus from the 

engine oil and sulfur from diesel fuel 

are the primary components in the 

exhaust stream which can de-activate a 

catalytic site. The risk of catalyst 

deterioration due to sulfur poisoning 

will be all but eliminated with the 2012 

implementation of ULSD fuel (<15 ppm 

S) for locomotive and marine 

applications. Catalyst deterioration due 

to phosphorous poisoning can be 

reduced through the use of engine oil 

with low sulfated-ash, phosphorus, and 

sulfur content (low-SAPS oil) and 

through reduced engine oil 

consumption. The high ash content in 

current locomotive and marine engine 

oils is related to the need for a high total 

base number (TBN) in the oil 

formulation. Because today’s diesel fuel 

has relatively high sulfur levels, a high 

TBN in the engine oil is necessary today 

to neutralize the acids created when 

fuel-borne sulfur migrates to the 

crankcase. With the use of ULSD fuel, 

acid formation in the crankcase will not 

be a significant concern. The low-SAPS 

oil will be available for on-highway use 

by October 2006 and is specified by the 

American Petroleum Institute as ‘‘CJ–4.’’

We also expect that Tier 3 locomotive 

and marine engine designs will have 

reduced oil consumption in order to 

meet the Tier 3 PM standards, and that 

the Tier 4 designs will be an 

evolutionary development that will 

apply catalytic exhaust controls to the 

Tier 3 engine designs. The durability of 

other exhaust aftertreatment devices, 

namely the DOC and CDPF, will also 

benefit from the use of ULSD fuel, 

reduced oil consumption and low-SAPS 

engine oil because the reduction in 

exposure of these devices to sulfur and 

phosphorous will improve their 

effectiveness and the reduction in ash 

loading will increase the CDPF ashcleaning intervals. 

(d) Packaging of Catalytic PM and NOX

Emissions Control Technology 

We project that locomotive 

manufacturers will need to re-package/ 

re-design the exhaust system 

components to accommodate the 

aftertreatment system. Our analysis 

shows the packaging requirements for 

the aftertreatment system are such that 

they can be accommodated within the 

envelope defined by the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR) Plate ‘‘L’’

clearance diagram for freight 

locomotives.113 Typical volume 

required for the SCR catalyst and postSCR ammonia slip catalyst for Euro V 

and U.S. 2010 heavy-duty truck 

applications is approximately 2 times 

the engine displacement, and the 

upstream DOC/CDPF volume is 

approximately 1–1.5 times the engine 

displacement. Due to the longer useful 

life and maintenance intervals required 

for locomotive applications, we estimate 

that the SCR catalyst volume will be 

sized at approximately 2.5 times the 

engine displacement, and the combined 

DOC/CDPF volume will be 

approximately 1.7 times the engine 

displacement. For an engine with 6 ft3

of total displacement, the volume 

requirement for the aftertreatment 

components would be approximately 25 

ft3. EPA engineers have examined Tier 

2 EMD and GE line-haul locomotives 

and conclude that there is adequate 

space to package these components. 

This conclusion also applies to new 

switcher locomotives, which, while 

being shorter in length than line-haul 

locomotives, will also be equipped with 

smaller, less-powerful engines—

resulting in smaller volume 

requirements for the aftertreatment 

components. Given the space available 

on today’s locomotives, we feel that 

packaging catalytic PM and NOX

emissions control technology on-board 

locomotives is actually less challenging 

than packaging similar technology onboard other mobile sources such as 

light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, 

and nonroad equipment. Given that 

similar exhaust systems are either 

already implemented on-board these 

vehicles or will be implemented on 

these vehicles years before similar 

systems would be required on-board 

locomotives, we believe that any 

packaging issues would be successfully 

addressed early in the locomotive 

redesign process. 

For commercial vessels that use 

marine diesel engines greater than 600 

kW, we expect that marine vessel 

builders will need to re-package and redesign the exhaust system components 

to accommodate the aftertreatment 

components expected to be necessary to 

meet the proposed standards. Our 

discussions with marine architects and 

engineers, along with our review of 

vessel characteristics, leads us to 

conclude for commercial marine 

vessels, adequate engine room space can 

be made available to package 

aftertreatment components. Packaging of 

these components, and analyzing their 

mass/placement effect on vessel 

characteristics, will become part of the 

design process undertaken by marine 

architecture firms.114

We did determine, however, that for 

recreational vessels and for vessels 

equipped with engines less than 600 

kW, catalytic PM and NOX exhaust 

treatment systems were less practical 

from a packaging standpoint than for the 

larger, commercially operated vessels. 

We did identify catalytic emissions 

control systems that would significantly 

reduce emissions from these smaller 

vessels. However, after taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, we identified a 

number of reasons why we are not 

proposing at this time any standards 

that would likely require catalytic 

exhaust treatment systems on these 

smaller vessels. One reason is that most 

of these vessels use seawater (fresh or 

saltwater) cooled exhaust systems, and 

even seawater injection into their 

exhaust systems, to cool engine exhaust 

to prevent overheating materials such as 

a fiberglass hull. This current practice of 

cooling and seawater injection could 

reduce the effectiveness of catalytic 

exhaust treatment systems. This is 

significantly more challenging than for 

gasoline catalyst systems due to much 

larger relative catalyst sizes and cooler 

exhaust temperatures typical of diesel 

engines. In addition, because of these 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15983 

115Miller, W. et al., ‘‘The Development of UreaSCR Technology for U.S. Heavy Duty Trucks,’’ SAE 

Technical Paper 2000–01–0190, 2000. 

116 ‘‘Ensuring the Availability and Reliability of 

Urea Dosing for On-Road and Non-Road,’’ presented 

by Glenn Barton, Terra Corp., 9th DEER Conference, 

August 28, 2003. 

117 ‘‘National Transportation Statistics—2004,’’

Table 4–5, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

118Assuming the dosing rate of 32.5 percent ureawater solution is 5 percent of the total fuel 

consumed; 3.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel * 0.05 

= 190 million gallons of urea-water solution. 

119 ‘‘Mineral Commodity Summaries 2006,’’ page 

118, U.S. Geological Survey, 

www.minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/ 

mcs2006.pdf. 

vessels’ small size and their typical 

design to operate by planing high on the 

surface of the water, catalytic exhaust 

treatment systems pose several 

significant packaging and weight 

challenges. Normally, such packaging 

and weight challenges would be 

addressed by the use of lightweight hull 

and superstructure materials. However, 

the currently accepted lightweight 

vessel materials are incompatible with 

the temperatures required to sustain 

catalyst effectiveness. One solution 

could be new lightweight hull and 

superstructure materials which would 

have to be developed, tested and 

approved prior to their application on 

vessels using catalytic exhaust treatment 

systems. Given these issues, we believe 

it is prudent to not propose catalytic 

exhaust treatment-based emission 

standards for marine diesel engines 

below 600 kW at this time. 

(e) Infrastructure Impacts of Catalytic 

PM and NOX Emissions Control 

Technology 

For PM trap technology the 

locomotive and marine industries will 

have minimal impact imposed upon 

their industries’ infrastructures. Since 

PM trap technology relies on no 

separate reductant, any infrastructure 

impacts would be limited to some minor 

changes in maintenance practices or 

maintenance facilities. Such 

maintenance would be limited to the 

infrequent process of removing 

lubricating oil ash buildup from within 

a PM trap. This type of maintenance 

might require facilities to remove PM 

traps for cleaning. This might involve 

the use of a crane or other lifting device. 

We understand that much of this kind 

of infrastructure already exists for other 

locomotive and marine engine 

maintenance practices. We have toured 

shipyards and locomotive maintenance 

facilities at rail switchyards, and we 

observed that such facilities are 

generally already adequate for any 

required PM trap maintenance. 

We do expect some impact on the 

railroad and marine sectors to 

accommodate the use of a separate 

reductant for use in a NOX SCR system. 

For light-duty, heavy-duty, and nonroad 

applications, the preferred reductant in 

an SCR system is a 32.5 percent ureawater solution. The 32.5 percent 

solution, also known as the ‘‘eutectic’’

concentration, provides the lowest 

freezing point (¥11 °C or 12 °F) and 

assures that the ratio of urea-to-water 

will not change when the solution 

begins to freeze.115 Heated storage tanks 

and insulated dispensing equipment 

may be necessary to prevent freeze-up 

in Northern climates. In addition, the 

urea dosing apparatus (urea storage 

tank, pump, and lines) onboard the 

locomotive or marine vessel may require 

similar protections. Locomotives and 

marine vessels are commonly refueled 

from large, centralized fuel storage 

tanks, tanker trucks, or tenders with 

long-term purchase agreements. Urea 

suppliers will be able to distribute urea 

to the locomotive and marine markets in 

a similar manner, or they may choose to 

employ multi-compartment diesel fuel/ 

urea tanker trucks for delivery of both 

products simultaneously. The frequency 

that urea needs to be added will be 

dependent on the urea storage capacity, 

duty-cycle, and urea dosing rate for each 

application. Discussions concerning the 

urea infrastructure in North America 

and specifications for an emissionsgrade urea solution are now under way 

amongst light- and heavy-duty onhighway diesel stakeholders. 

Although an infrastructure for 

widespread transportation, storage, and 

dispensing of SCR-grade urea does not 

currently exist in the U.S., the affected 

stakeholders in the light- and heavyduty on-highway and nonroad diesel 

sectors are expected to follow the 

European model, in which diesel 

engine/truck manufacturers and fuel 

refiners/distributors formed a 

collaborative working group known as 

‘‘AdBlue.’’ The goal of the AdBlue 

organization is to resolve potential 

problems with the supply, handling, 

and distribution of urea and to establish 

standards for product purity.116

Concerning urea production capacity, 

the U.S. has more-than-sufficient 

capacity to meet the additional needs of 

the rail and marine industries. For 

example, in 2003, the total diesel fuel 

consumption for Class I railroads was 

approximately 3.8 billion gallons.117 If 

100 percent of the Class I locomotive 

fleet were equipped with SCR catalysts, 

approximately 190 million gallons-peryear of 32.5 percent urea-water solution 

would be required.118 It is estimated 

that 190 million gallons of urea solution 

would require 0.28 million tons of dry 

urea (1 ton dry urea is needed to 

produce 667 gallons of 32.5 percent 

urea-water solution). Currently, the U.S. 

consumes 14.7 million tons of ammonia 

resources per year, and relies on imports 

for 41 percent of that total (of which, 

urea is the principal derivative). In 2005 

domestic ammonia producers operated 

their plants at 66 percent of rated 

capacity, resulting in 4.5 million tons of 

reserve production capacity.119 In the 

hypothetical situation above, where 100 

percent of the locomotive fleet required 

urea, only 6.2 percent of the reserve 

domestic capacity would be needed to 

satisfy the additional demand. A similar 

analysis for the marine industry, with a 

yearly diesel fuel consumption of 2.2 

billion gallons per year, would not 

significantly impact the urea demandto-reserve capacity equation. Since the 

rate at which urea-SCR technology is 

introduced to the railroad and marine 

markets will be gradual—and the 

reserve urea production capacity is 

more-than-adequate to meet the 

expected demand in the 2017 

timeframe—EPA does not project any 

urea cost or supply issues will result 

from implementing the proposed Tier 4 

standards. 

(3) The Proposed Standards Are 

Technologically Feasible 

Our proposal covers a wide range of 

engines and the implementation of a 

range of emissions controls 

technologies, and we have identified a 

range of technologically feasible 

emissions control technologies that 

likely would be used to meet our 

proposed standards. Some of these 

technologies are incremental 

improvements to existing engine 

components, and many of these 

improved components have already 

been applied to similar engines. The 

other technologies we identified involve 

catalytic exhaust treatment systems. For 

these technologies we carefully 

examined the catalyst technology, its 

applicability to locomotive and marine 

engine packaging constraints, its 

durability with respect to the lifetime of 

today’s locomotive and marine engines, 

and its impact on the infrastructure of 

the rail and marine industries. From our 

analysis, which is presented in detail in 

our draft RIA, we conclude that 

incremental improvements to engine 

components and the implementation of 

catalytic PM and NOX exhaust treatment 

technology would be feasible to meet 

our proposed emissions standards. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15984 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(4) A Request for Detailed Technical 

Comments 

We have carried out an extensive 

outreach program with the regulated 

industry to understand the potential 

impacts and technical challenges to the 

application of aftertreatment technology 

to diesel locomotives and marine 

engines. We are requesting comments 

on all parts of our resulting analyses 

summarized in the preceding sections 

and presented in greater detail in the 

Draft RIA. 

Further, we request comment on the 

following list of detailed questions 

provided to the Agency by a stakeholder 

regarding particular challenges in 

applying aftertreatment technologies to 

diesel locomotives. Some of these 

questions raise concerns about the 

feasibility of the proposed Tier 4 

standards under specific environmental 

conditions. We present theses questions 

without endorsing the appropriateness 

of applying these conditions to 

locomotive catalyst designs. The reader 

should refer to the preceding sections 

and the draft RIA for our analyses of the 

relevant issues. 

(1) How do the following attributes of 

the locomotive exhaust environment 

impact the ability of a Zeolite SCR type 

catalyst to operate within 10% of its ‘‘as 

new’’ conversion efficiency (∼94%) after 

34,000 MW-hours of operation? 

Æ 150 hours per year operation at 600 

Celsius exhaust temperature at the inlet 

to the SCR, due to DPF regeneration.’’

(20-minute regeneration every 20 hours 

of operation). 

Æ 120 minutes per year operation at 

700 Celsius. 

Æ Soot exposure equal to 0.03 g/bhphr. 

Æ Shock loading averaging 1,000 

mechanical shock pulses per year due to 

hard coupling. 

Æ Extended periods of vibration 

where the vibration load on the catalysts 

can reach 6G and 1000 Hz. 

Æ Water exposure due to rains, icing, 

water spray and condensed frozen or 

liquid water during 20% of its life. 

Æ Salt fog consisting of 5 ± 1% salt 

concentration by weight with fallout 

rate between 0.00625 and 0.0375 ml/ 

cm2/hr. 

Æ The catalysts will be subject to 

sands composed of 95% of SiO2 with 

particle size between 1 to 650 microns 

in diameter with sand concentration of 

1.1 ± 0.25 g/m3 and air velocity of 29 m/ 

s (104 km/h). 

Æ Exposure to dusts comprised of red 

china clay and silicon flour of particle 

sizes that are between 1 to 650 microns 

in diameter with dust concentration of 

10.6 ± 7 g/m3 with a velocity equal to 

locomotive motion velocity on catalyst 

surfaces. 

(2) Is it feasible for a Zeolite SCR 

catalyst (as compared to the Vanadiumbased catalysts) to operate within 10% 

of its as new conversion efficiency 

(~94%) after sustained exposure to real 

exhaust? If it is, why is it feasible? If it 

is not feasible, please explain why it is 

not. 

(3) Is it feasible to maintain the 

conversion efficiency of a diesel 

oxidation catalyst at least at 45% in the 

same catalyst environment described in 

(1) above? In your comments, please 

explain why or why not. 

(4) The feasibility of achieving low 

ammonia slip, i.e., less than 5 ppm, 

from urea-based SCR systems that dose 

at or above 1:1 ratios when applied to 

an exhaust stream with 500–600 ppm 

NOX under both steady state and 

transient load conditions. 

(5) The feasibility of a reliable NOX

sensor with 5% accuracy to control urea 

dosing sufficiently to achieve a 95% 

NOX conversion efficiency using a 

Zeolite-based SCR when not kinetically 

limited. 

(6) The expected level of ammonia 

slip catalyst selectivity back to NOX

when a Zeolite-based SCR is dosed at 

1:1 ratios and applied to diesel engines 

above 3.0 MW with an exhaust stream 

of 500–600 ppm NOX. 

(7) The effect on overall locomotive 

weight and balance when applying DPF 

and SCR devices with a weight in excess 

of 8000 lbs and volume in excess of 40 

cubic feet mounted above the engine. 

(8) The expected effect on locomotive 

operating range when adding urea 

storage equal to 5% of locomotive fuel 

capacity and a 2% decrease in 

locomotive fuel efficiency. 

(9) Incidental emissions generation 

resulting from the production and 

distribution of urea for railroad usage 

(200,000,000 gallons/year). 

(10) The comparative performance of 

a given engine on the marine v. 

locomotive duty cycle to include an 

assessment of SCR technologies (i.e., 

Zeolilte v. Vanadium), expected 

effectiveness for each application, and 

any considerations that may be unique 

for one application versus the other that 

could impact overall NOX conversion 

effectiveness. 

(11) The impact of the proposed Tier 

4 NOX limit of 1.3 g/hp-hr versus 

incrementally higher limits on fuel burn 

and greenhouse gas emissions. 

EPA notes that many of these issues 

are addressed elsewhere in the preamble 

and in the draft RIA. We invite 

comment on these questions in the 

context of the information provided 

elsewhere on these issues. In providing 

comments to these eleven questions, we 

ask that commenters provide 

information both directly responsive to 

the individual question and further to 

the relevance of the question in 

determining the appropriate emission 

standard for diesel locomotives. For 

example, question 1 lists a wide range 

of conditions for catalyst systems on a 

diesel locomotive. In that context, EPA 

also invites comment on the following 

questions. 

• How do the shock loading, 

vibration loading, soot exposure, and 

temperature exposure conditions listed 

in Question 1 compare to conditions 

faced by other applications of Zeolitetype urea SCR systems that are either 

under development or that have been 

developed for on-highway diesel, 

nonroad diesel, marine and stationary 

gas turbine applications? 

• Question 1 asserts that a locomotive 

catalyst design would directly expose 

catalyst substrates to rain water, icing, 

water spray and condensed frozen or 

liquid water during 20% of its life. Are 

there catalyst packaging and installation 

issues that would necessitate any direct 

exposure of catalyst substrates to 

weather? 

• Question 1 implies that a 

locomotive catalyst design would 

directly expose catalyst substrates to salt 

fogs consisting of 5 ± 1% salt 

concentration by weight with fallout 

rate between 0.00625 and 0.0375 ml/ 

cm2/hr. What salt concentrations in salt 

fogs and what fallout rates have SCR 

systems applied to ocean-going vessels 

been exposed to? How would the 

systems designs, exposures and impacts 

be similar to or different from 

locomotive applications? Are there 

unique characteristics of locomotive 

catalyst installations that would 

increase their exposure to salt fog 

relative to other applications operated 

near or in ocean environments? What 

direct experiences have ocean-going 

vessels had regarding the durability of 

their catalytic emission control systems? 

• Question 1 implies that locomotive 

catalyst systems must withstand 

exposure to sand ingested by the engine 

at a rate of up to 50 pounds per hour 

at notch 8. The question also implies 

that locomotive catalyst substrates must 

withstand exposure to a combination of 

red china clay and silicon flour at a rate 

of up to one-quarter ton per hour at 

notch 8. Are these appropriate metrics 

that reasonably take into consideration 

the design of the locomotive air-intake 

and filtration system and the ability of 

the engine and turbocharger systems to 

withstand such extreme exposure to 

ingestion of abrasive materials? Are tests 

replicating this condition routinely 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15985 

120Residual fuel also possesses a high viscosity 

and density, which makes it harder to handle and 

use of this fuel requires special equipment such as 

heaters, centrifuges, and purifiers. It typically also 

has a high ash, and nitrogen content compared to 

distillate diesel fuels. It is not produced to a set of 

narrow specifications, and so fuel parameters can 

be highly variable. 

121Corbett, J.J., et al. Estimation, Validation, and 

Forecasts of Regional Commercial Marine Vessel 

Inventories, Tasks 1 and 2: Baseline Inventory and 

Ports Comparison, Final Report, dated 3 May 2006. 

Prepared for the California Air Resources Board, the 

Californian Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in 

North America. ARB contract 04–346, CEC Contract 

113.11. A copy of this document can be found 

atwww.arb.ca.gov/research/seca/jctask12.pdf. 

conducted to demonstrate the durability 

of the engine and turbocharger systems 

and emissions compliance following 

such high rates of engine ingestion of 

abrasive materials? 

• Questions 2 and 3 imply that 

greater than 45% DOC oxidation 

efficiency is required to maintain 

Zeolite SCR catalyst efficiency at greater 

than 94% NOX efficiency, and that 94% 

NOX efficiency is required to meet the 

proposed Tier 4 NOX standard. Is greater 

than 45% oxidation efficiency for an 

upstream DOC necessary for 

locomotives to meet the 1.3 g/bhp-hr 

NOX standard over the range of exhaust 

temperature encountered by 

locomotives over the line-haul duty 

cycle when using a Zeolite-based SCR 

system? Is 94% NOX efficiency from the 

current Tier 2 locomotive baseline even 

necessary to achieve 1.3 g/bhp-hr NOX

emissions when using a Zeolite SCR 

catalyst system over the line-haul dutycycle? 

• What level of ammonia slip is 

achievable from modern urea-SCR 

systems using closed-loop feedback 

control? Is 5 ppm an appropriate level 

to set for maximum ammonia slip under 

any conditions? 

• Is 5% of point the limit of zirconiaNOX sensor accuracy? Does NOX sensor 

accuracy currently limit NOX

conversion efficiency of feedback 

controlled SCR systems, and if so by 

how much? What level of NOX

conversion efficiency using a Zeolitebased SCR when not kinetically limited 

is achievable using current feedback 

control systems using of zirconia-NOX

sensors? What level of NOX conversion 

efficiency can be expected taking into 

consideration projected NOX sensor and 

feedback control system development 

over the next ten to fifteen years? 

Comments submitted should provide 

detailed technical information and data 

to the extent possible. The EPA solicits 

comment on the extent to which any 

factor may impact the ability to achieve 

the proposed standard and if the 

proposed standard cannot be achieved 

in the commenter’s view, what standard 

can be achieved. 

E. What Are EPA’s Plans for Diesel 

Marine Engines on Large Ocean-Going 

Vessels? 

Today’s proposal covers marine diesel 

engines up to 30 l/cyl displacement 

installed on vessels flagged or registered 

in the U.S. There are two additional 

significant sources of air pollution from 

diesel marine engines which are not 

covered by today’s proposal: first, 

marine diesel engines of any size 

(Category 1, 2 or 3) installed on foreignflagged vessels; and second, marine 

diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl 

displacement (Category 3) installed on 

U.S. flagged vessels. The largest 

environmental concern for these types 

of engines are the large, ocean-going 

marine vessels (OGV), which are 

typically larger than 2,000 gross tons 

and involved primarily in international 

commerce. Ocean-going marine vessels 

typically are powered by one or more 

Category 3 diesel engines for propulsion 

of the vessel, and they typically also 

have several Category 2 engines to 

provide auxiliary power. Engines on 

OGV are predominately fueled by 

residual fuel (often called ‘‘heavy fuel 

oil’’), which is a by-product of distilling 

crude oil to produce lighter petroleum 

products such as gasoline, distillate 

diesel fuel, and kerosene and has a high 

sulfur content, up to 45,000 ppm.120

Ocean-going vessels are a significant 

contributor to air pollution in the 

United States, in particular in coastal 

areas and ports. Current projections 

indicate that on a national level, OGVs 

flagged in the U.S. and other countries 

will contribute about 21 percent of 

mobile source PM, 12 percent NOX and 

76 percent of SOX in the year 2030. 

These contributions can be much higher 

in some coastal and port areas. 

However, recent inventory estimates 

performed for the California Air 

Resources Board and the Commission 

for Environmental Cooperation in North 

America suggest that we are 

significantly underestimating the 

emissions for C3 engines, by as much as 

a factor of 2 or 3.121

EPA has a number of activities 

underway which hold promise for 

reducing air pollution from OGVs. 

These include: a future rulemaking 

action on C3 engine standards; 

negotiations underway at the 

International Maritime Organization to 

establish a new set of environmentally 

protective international emission 

standards for OGVs; studies to assess 

the feasibility of establishing one or 

more SOX Emission Control Areas 

adjacent to North America to reduce 

SOX and particulate matter from OGVs; 

and voluntary actions through our Clean 

Ports USA program. 

(1) Future C3 Marine Rule 

In 2003 we issued a final rule for new 

C3 engines installed on U.S. flagged 

vessels. That final action established 

NOX limits for new C3 engines which 

are equal to the current international 

NOX standards for C3 engines 

established through Annex VI of the 

International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL 73/78). The MARPOL 

standards are based on the capabilities 

of emission control technologies from 

the early 1990s, and are significantly 

higher then emission standards for any 

other mobile source in the United 

States. In the 2003 final rule, we 

identified the technical challenges 

associated with the application of aftertreatment technologies to these engines 

and vessels, but committed to revisiting 

the issue of the appropriate long-term 

emission standards for C3 marine 

engines, both those which are on vessels 

flagged in the U.S. and those which are 

installed on foreign flagged vessels. In 

revisiting the standards we indicated 

that we would consider the state of 

technology that may permit deeper 

emission reductions and the status of 

international action for more stringent 

standards. We committed to a final 

Agency action by April 27, 2007. 

In 2003, we believed the next round 

of emission standard discussions at the 

IMO would be well underway, if not 

concluded, by April of 2006. In 2003, 

we also believed the IMO deliberations 

would be one of the avenues to explore 

improvements in emission control 

technology for C3 engines and oceangoing vessels, and would provide 

valuable technical input for EPA’s C3 

rulemaking. 

Despite efforts by the United States 

Government at IMO, deliberations 

regarding future emission standards for 

OGV did not begin until April 2006. The 

current round of negotiations at IMO is 

expected to continue through 2007. The 

discussions thus far at IMO have 

yielded new technical information 

which EPA will be able to make use of 

in our future C3 rulemaking. We expect 

to issue a revised schedule for the C3 

rule in the next few months as well as 

solicit comments on the appropriate 

technologies, standards, and lead time 

EPA should consider for C3 standards. 

(2) International Standards Deliberation 

at IMO 

With respect to the discussions 

currently underway at the IMO, the 

United States Government is actively 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15986 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

122 In a separate rulemaking, which has been 

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review, we will be proposing 

modifications to the existing provisions of 40 CFR 

part 1068. We have placed into the docket for this 

current proposal, a copy of the draft part 1068 

regulatory language that was submitted to OMB. 

Readers interested in the compliance provisions 

that would apply to locomotives and marine diesel 

engines should also read the actual regulatory 

changes that will be proposed in that upcoming 

rulemaking. 

engaged in the negotiation of a new set 

of international standards for Annex VI 

to the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships 

(MARPOL Annex VI). Since the current 

Annex VI NOX limits have entered into 

effect, and in the time frame since EPA 

issued our 2003 rule, improvements in 

both in-cylinder and external emission 

control technologies have been 

demonstrated, both in the laboratory 

and on-board OGVs. These technologies 

offer the potential to substantially 

reduce NOX emissions from OGVs. In 

addition, the use of lower sulfur 

residual or distillate fuels and/or the use 

of SOX scrubbing technologies offer the 

potential to substantially reduce PM and 

SOX emissions from OGVs. We believe 

the member states of the IMO, including 

the United States, have a unique 

opportunity to establish appropriate 

long-term standards to address air 

pollution from OGVs. 

The current discussions for the next 

tier of engine emission standards at IMO 

also provide an opportunity to apply 

emission reduction technologies to 

existing vessels. EPA is a strong 

supporter of reducing pollution of 

existing vessels through mandatory 

rebuild/retrofit requirements and we 

will continue to pursue this objective at 

the IMO. 

(3) SOX Emission Control Areas 

The existing international agreements 

adopted by the IMO provide the 

opportunity for signatories to Annex VI 

of the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Pollution from Ships to 

propose the designation of one or more 

SOX Emission Control Areas (SECA). 

When operating in a SECA, all OGVs 

must either use fuel with a maximum 

sulfur content of 15,000 ppm or use 

emission control technology such that 

the vessel meets a SOX limit of 6 g/kWhr (a value deemed equivalent to 15,000 

ppm sulfur). This represents only 

approximately a 45 percent reduction in 

SOX emissions compared to the worldwide fuel sulfur average for heavy-fuel 

oil of about 27,000 ppm. EPA is 

currently performing environmental 

impact and economic analyses that will 

assist the federal government in making 

a determination whether the U.S. 

Government should consider a proposal 

designating a SECA to one or more areas 

adjacent to North America. We are 

working closely with the Canadian 

Government Canada) on these efforts, 

and we also intend to coordinate our 

actions with Mexico. This could allow 

for the inclusion of additional coastal 

areas within SECAs for North American. 

It must be noted that the United States 

has not yet ratified Annex VI and any 

decision regarding whether the United 

States will pursue the designation of a 

SECA will be influenced by where the 

United States stands with respect to 

ratification of MARPOL Annex VI. 

(4) Clean Ports USA 

As part of EPA’s National Clean 

Diesel Campaign, Clean Ports USA is an 

incentive-based, public-private 

partnership designed to reduce 

emissions from existing diesel engines 

and vessels at ports. The Clean Ports 

USA team works to bring together 

partners and build coalitions to identify 

and develop cost-effective diesel 

emission reduction projects that address 

the key issues affecting ports today. EPA 

provides technical support in verifying 

the effectiveness of retrofit technology, 

to ensure through rigorous testing that 

the emissions reductions promised by 

vendors are in fact achieved in the field. 

Clean Ports USA is providing 

incentives to port authorities, terminal 

operators, cargo interests, trucking 

fleets, and maritime fleet owners to: 

• Retrofit and replace older diesel 

engines with verified technologies such 

as diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs), 

diesel particulate filters (DPFs). 

• Use cleaner fuels (ultra-low sulfur 

diesel fuel, emulsions). 

• Increase operational efficiency, 

including environmental management 

systems, logistics, and appointment 

systems. 

• Reduce engine idling. 

• Replace older engines with new, 

cleaner engines. 

Additional information is available on 

the Clean Ports USA Web site at 

www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports. 

IV. Certification and Compliance 

Program 

This section describes the regulatory 

changes proposed for the locomotive 

and marine compliance programs. The 

most obvious change is that the 

proposed regulations have been written 

in plain language. They are structured to 

contain the provisions that are specific 

to locomotives in a new proposed part 

1033 and contain the provisions that are 

specific to marine engines and vessels 

in a new proposed part 1042. We also 

propose to apply the general provisions 

of existing parts 1065 and 1068.122 The 

proposed plain language regulations, 

however, are not intended to 

significantly change the compliance 

program, except as specifically noted in 

today’s 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 92 and 94 (for 

Categories 1 and 2) as early as the 2008 

model year. See section III for the 

starting dates for different engines. The 

changes from the existing programs are 

described below along with other 

notable aspects of the compliance 

program. Note: The term manufacturer 

is used in this section to include 

locomotive and marine manufacturers 

and locomotive remanufacturers. It 

would also include marine 

remanufacturers if we finalize 

remanufacture standards. 

A. Issues Common to Locomotives and 

Marine 

For many aspects of compliance, we 

are proposing similar provisions for 

marine engines and locomotives, which 

are discussed in this section. Also 

included in this section are issues 

which are similar, but where we are 

proposing different provisions. The 

other compliance issues are discussed 

in sections IV. B. (for locomotives) and 

IV. C. (for marine). 

(1) Modified Test Procedures 

(a) Incorporation of Part 1065 Test 

Procedures for Locomotive and Marine 

Diesel Engines 

As part of our initiative to update the 

content, organization and writing style 

of our regulations, we are revising our 

test procedures. We have grouped all of 

our engine dynamometer and field 

testing test procedures into one part 

entitled, ‘‘Part 1065: Test Procedures.’’

For each engine or vehicle sector for 

which we have recently promulgated 

standards (such as land-based nonroad 

diesel engines or recreational vehicles), 

we identified an individual part as the 

standard-setting part for that sector. 

These standard-setting parts then refer 

to one common set of test procedures in 

part 1065. We intend in this proposal to 

continue this process of having all our 

engine programs refer to a common set 

of procedures by applying part 1065 to 

all locomotive and marine diesel 

engines. 

In the past, each engine or vehicle 

sector had its own set of testing 

procedures. There are many similarities 

in test procedures across the various 

sectors. However, as we introduced new 

regulations for individual sectors, the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15987 

123Memorandum to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–

0190, ‘‘Redline/Strikeout of 40 CFR 1065 (Test 

Procedures) Changes and Additions’’. 

more recent regulations featured test 

procedure updates and improvements 

that the other sectors did not have. As 

this process continued, we recognized 

that a single set of test procedures 

would allow for improvements to occur 

simultaneously across engine and 

vehicle 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. We note that 

procedures that are particular for 

different types of engines or vehicles, 

for example, test schedules designed to 

reflect the conditions expected in use 

for particular types of vehicles or 

engines, would remain separate and 

would be reflected in the standardsetting parts of the regulations. 

As compared to the existing 

locomotive and marine diesel test 

procedures found in parts 92 and 94, 

part 1065 test procedures are organized 

and written for improved clarity. In 

addition, we are proposing part 1065 for 

locomotive and marine diesel engines to 

improve the content of their respective 

testing specifications, including the 

following: 

• Specifications and calculations 

written in the international system of 

units (SI). 

• Procedures by which manufacturers 

can demonstrate that alternate test 

procedures are equivalent to specified 

procedures. 

• Specifications for new 

measurement technology that has been 

shown to be equivalent or more accurate 

than existing technology. 

• Procedures that improve test 

repeatability. 

• Calculations that simplify 

emissions determination. 

• New procedures for field testing 

engines. 

• More comprehensive sets of 

definitions, references, and symbols. 

• Calibration and accuracy 

specifications that are scaled to the 

applicable standard, which allows us to 

adopt a single specification that applies 

to a wide range of engine sizes and 

applications. 

Some emission-control programs 

already rely on the test procedures in 

part 1065. These programs regulate 

land-based on-highway heavy-duty 

engines, land-based nonroad diesel 

engines, recreational vehicles, and 

nonroad spark-ignition engines over 19 

kW. 

We are adopting the lab-testing and 

field-testing specifications in part 1065 

for all locomotive and marine diesel 

engines. These procedures replace those 

currently published in parts 92 and 94. 

We are making 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 

be required for any new testing by the 

model year in which the Tier 4 standard 

applies to a locomotive or marine diesel 

engine or by 2012 for a locomotive or 

marine diesel engine that is not 

proposed to be subject to a Tier 4 

standard. For any testing completed for 

any emissions standard that is less 

stringent than the respective Tier 4 

standard, manufacturers may continue 

to rely on carryover test data based on 

part 92 or 94 procedures to certify 

engine families in later years. In 

addition, for any other programs that 

refer to the test procedures in parts 92 

or 94, we are including updated 

references for all these other programs 

to refer instead to the appropriate cite in 

part 1065. 

Part 1065 is also advantageous for inuse testing because it specifies the same 

procedures for all common parts of field 

testing and laboratory testing. It also 

contains new provisions that help 

ensure that engines are tested in a 

laboratory in a way that is consistent 

with how they operate in use. These 

new provisions would ensure that 

engine dynamometer lab testing and 

field testing are conducted in a 

consistent way. 

In the future, we may apply the test 

procedures specified in part 1065 to 

other types of engines, so we encourage 

companies involved in producing or 

testing other engines to stay informed of 

developments related to these test 

procedures. 

(b) Revisions to Part 1065 

Part 1065 was originally adopted on 

November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242), and 

was initially applicable to standards 

regulating large nonroad spark-ignition 

engines and recreational vehicles under 

40 CFR parts 1048 and 1051. The recent 

rulemaking adopting emission standards 

for nonroad diesel engines has also 

made part 1065 optional for Tier 2 and 

Tier 3 nonroad standards and required 

for Tier 4 standards. The test procedures 

initially adopted in part 1065 were 

sufficient to conduct testing, but on July 

13, 2005 (70 FR 11534) we promulgated 

a final rule that reorganized these 

procedures and added content to make 

various improvements. In particular, we 

reorganized part 1065 by subparts as 

shown below: 

• Subpart A: General provisions; 

global information on applicability, 

alternate procedures, units of measure, 

etc. 

• Subpart B: Equipment 

specifications; required hardware for 

testing. 

• Subpart C: Measurement 

instruments. 

• Subpart D: Calibration and 

verifications; for measurement systems. 

• Subpart E: Engine selection, 

preparation, and maintenance. 

• Subpart F: Test protocols; step-bystep sequences for laboratory testing and 

test validation. 

• Subpart G: Calculations and 

required information. 

• Subpart H: Fuels, fluids, and 

analytical gases. 

• Subpart I: Oxygenated fuels; special 

test procedures. 

• Subpart J: Field testing and portable 

emissions measurement systems. 

• Subpart K: Definitions, references, 

and symbols. 

The regulations now prescribe scaled 

specifications for test equipment and 

measurement instruments by parameters 

such as engine power, engine speed and 

the emission standards to which an 

engine must comply. That way this 

single set of specifications would cover 

the full range of engine sizes and our 

full range of emission standards. 

Manufacturers would be able to use 

these specifications to determine what 

range of engines and emission standards 

may be tested using a given laboratory 

or field testing system. 

The content of part 1065 is mostly a 

combination of content from our most 

recent updates to other test procedures 

and from test procedures specified by 

the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO). In some cases, 

however, there is new content that 

never existed in previous regulations. 

This new content addresses very recent 

issues such as measuring very low 

concentrations of emissions, using new 

measurement technology, using portable 

emissions measurement systems, and 

performing field testing. A detailed 

description of the changes is provided 

in a memorandum to the docket.123

The new content also reflects a shift 

in our approach for specifying 

measurement performance. In the past 

we specified numerous calibration 

accuracies for individual measurement 

instruments, and we specified some 

verifications for individual components, 

such as NO2 to NO converters. We have 

shifted our focus away from individual 

instruments and toward the overall 

performance of complete measurement 

systems. We did this for several reasons. 

First, some of what we specified in the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15988 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

past precluded the implementation of 

new measurement technologies. These 

new technologies, sometimes called 

‘‘smart analyzers’’, combine signals from 

multiple instruments to compensate for 

interferences that were previously 

tolerable at higher emissions levels. 

These analyzers are useful for detecting 

low concentrations of emissions. They 

are also useful for detecting emissions 

from raw exhaust, which can contain 

high concentrations of interferences, 

such as water vapor. This is particularly 

important for field testing, which will 

most likely rely upon raw exhaust 

measurements. Second, this new 

‘‘systems approach’’ challenges 

complete measurement systems with a 

series of periodic verifications, which 

we feel will provide a more robust 

assurance that a measurement system as 

a whole is operating properly. Third, the 

systems approach provides a direct 

pathway to demonstrate that a field test 

system performs similarly to a 

laboratory system. This is explained in 

more detail in item 10 below. Finally, 

we feel that our systems approach will 

lead to a more efficient way of assuring 

measurement performance in the 

laboratory and in the field. We believe 

that this efficiency will stem from less 

frequent individual instrument 

calibrations, and higher confidence that 

a complete measurement system is 

operating properly. 

We have organized the new content 

relating to measurement systems 

performance into subparts C and D. We 

specify measurement instruments in 

subpart C and calibrations and periodic 

system verifications in subpart D. These 

two subparts apply to both laboratory 

and field testing. We have organized 

content specific to running a laboratory 

emissions test in subpart F, and we 

separated content specific to field 

testing in subpart J. 

In subpart C we specify the types of 

acceptable instruments, but we only 

recommend individual instrument 

performance. We provide these 

recommendations as guidance for 

procuring new instruments. We feel that 

the periodic verifications that we 

require in subpart D will sufficiently 

evaluate the individual instruments as 

part of their respective overall 

measurement systems. In subpart F we 

specify performance validations that 

must be conducted as part of every 

laboratory test. In subpart J we specify 

similar performance validations for field 

testing that must be conducted as part 

of every field test. We feel that the 

periodic verifications in subpart D and 

the validations for every test that we 

prescribed in subparts F and J ensure 

that complete measurement systems are 

operating properly. 

In subpart J we also specify an 

additional overall verification of 

portable emissions measurement 

systems (PEMS). This verification is a 

comprehensive comparison of a PEMS 

versus a laboratory system, and it may 

take several days of laboratory time to 

set up, run, and evaluate. However, we 

only require that this particular 

verification must be performed at least 

once for a given make, model, and 

configuration of a field test system. 

Below is a brief description of the 

content of each subpart, highlighting 

some of the most important content. 

(i) Subpart A: General Provisions 

In Subpart A we identify the 

applicability of part 1065 and describe 

how procedures other than those in part 

1065 may be used to comply with a 

standard-setting part. In § 1065.10(c)(1), 

we specify that testing must be 

conducted in a way that represents inuse engine operation, such that in the 

rare case where provisions in part 1065 

result in unrepresentative testing, other 

procedures would be used. 

Other information in this subpart 

includes a description of the 

conventions we use regarding units and 

certain measurements; and we discuss 

recordkeeping. We also provide an 

overview of how emissions and other 

information are used to determine final 

emission results. The regulations in 

§ 1065.15 include a figure illustrating 

the different ways we allow brakespecific emissions to be calculated. 

In this same subpart, we describe how 

continuous and batch sampling may be 

used to determine total emissions. We 

also describe the two ways of 

determining total work that we approve. 

Note that the figure indicates our default 

procedures and those procedures that 

require additional approval before we 

will allow them. 

(ii) Subpart B: Equipment Specifications 

Subpart B first describes engine and 

dynamometer related systems. Many of 

these specifications are scaled to an 

engine’s size, speed, torque, exhaust 

flow rate, etc. We specify the use of inuse engine subsystems such as air intake 

systems wherever possible in order to 

best represent in-use operation when an 

engine is tested in a laboratory. 

Subpart B also describes sampling 

dilution systems. These include 

specifications for the allowable 

components, materials, pressures, and 

temperatures. We describe how to 

sample crankcase emissions. Subpart B 

also specifies environmental conditions 

for PM filter stabilization and weighing. 

The regulations in § 1065.101 include 

a diagram illustrating all the available 

equipment for measuring emissions. 

(iii) Subpart C: Measurement 

Instruments 

Subpart C specifies the requirements 

for the measurement instruments used 

for testing. In subpart C we recommend 

accuracy, repeatability, noise, and 

response time specifications for 

individual measurement instruments, 

but note that we only require that 

overall measurement systems meet the 

calibrations and verifications in Subpart 

D. 

In some cases we allow instrument 

types to be used where we previously 

did not allow them in parts 92 or 94. For 

example, we now allow the use of a 

nonmethane cutter for NMHC 

measurement, a nondispersive 

ultraviolet analyzer for NOX

measurement, a zirconia sensor for O2

measurement, various raw-exhaust flow 

meters for laboratory and field testing 

measurement, and an ultrasonic flow 

meter for CVS systems. 

(iv) Subpart D: Calibrations and 

Verifications 

Subpart D describes what we mean 

when we specify accuracy, repeatability 

and other parameters in Subpart C. We 

are adopting calibrations and 

verifications that scale with engine size 

and with the emission standards to 

which an engine is certified. We are 

replacing some of what we have called 

‘‘calibrations’’ in the past with a series 

of verifications, such as a linearity 

verification, which essentially verifies 

the calibration of an instrument without 

specifying how the instrument must be 

initially calibrated. Because new 

instruments have built-in routines that 

linearize signals and compensate for 

various interferences, our existing 

calibration specifications in parts 92 

and 94 sometimes conflicted with an 

instrument manufacturer’s instructions. 

In addition, there are new verifications 

in subpart D to ensure that the new 

instruments we specify in Subpart C are 

used correctly. 

(v) Subpart E: Engine Selection, 

Preparation, and Maintenance 

Subpart E describes how to select, 

prepare, and maintain a test engine. 

(vi) Subpart F: Test Protocols 

Subpart F describes the step-by-step 

protocols for engine mapping, test cycle 

generation, test cycle validation, pre-test 

preconditioning, engine starting, 

emission sampling, and post-test 

validations. We allow modest 

corrections for drift of emission analyzer 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15989 

signals within a certain range. We 

recommend a step-by-step procedure for 

weighing PM samples. 

(vii) Subpart G: Calculations and 

Required Information 

Subpart G includes all the 

calculations required in part 1065. 

Subpart G includes definitions of 

statistical quantities such as mean, 

standard deviation, slope, intercept, ttest, F-test, etc. By defining these 

quantities mathematically we intend to 

resolve any potential miscommunication when we discuss these 

quantities in other subparts. We have 

written all calculations for calibrations 

and emission calculations in 

international units. For our standards 

that are not completely in international 

units (i.e., grams/horsepower-hour, 

grams/mile), we specify in part 1065 the 

correct use of internationally recognized 

conversion factors. 

We also specify emission calculations 

based on molar quantities for flow rates, 

instead of volume or mass. This change 

eliminates the frequent confusion 

caused by using different reference 

points for standard pressure and 

standard temperature. Instead of 

declaring standard densities at standard 

pressure and standard temperature to 

convert volumetric concentration 

measurements to mass-based units, we 

declare molar masses for individual 

elements and compounds. Since these 

values are independent of all other 

parameters, they are known to be 

universally constant. 

(viii) Subpart H: Fuels, Fluids, and 

Analytical Gases 

Subpart H specifies test fuels, 

lubricating oils and coolants, and 

analytical gases for testing. We 

eliminated the Cetane Index 

specification for all diesel fuels, because 

the existing specification for Cetane 

Number sufficiently determines the 

cetane levels of diesel test fuels. We do 

not identify any detailed specification 

for service accumulation fuel. Instead, 

we specify that service accumulation 

fuel may be either a test fuel or a 

commercially available in-use fuel. We 

include a list of ASTM specifications for 

in-use fuels as examples of appropriate 

service accumulation fuels. We include 

an allowance for engine manufacturers 

to use in-use test fuels that do not meet 

all of the specifications, provided that 

the in-use fuel does not adversely affect 

the manufacturer’s ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standard. For example a fuel 

that would result in lower emissions 

versus the certification fuel would 

generally adversely affect a 

manufacturers ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. We also allow the use of 

ASTM test methods specified in 40 CFR 

Part 80 in lieu of those specified in part 

1065. We did this because we more 

frequently review and update the ASTM 

methods in 40 CFR Part 80 versus those 

in part 1065. 

(ix) Subpart I: Oxygenated Fuels 

Subpart I describes special procedures 

for measuring certain hydrocarbons 

whenever oxygenated fuels are used. We 

allow the use of the California NMOG 

test procedures to measure alcohols and 

carbonyls. 

(x) Subpart J: Field Testing and Portable 

Emissions Measurement Systems 

As described in Subpart J, Portable 

Emissions Measurement Systems 

(PEMS) must generally meet the same 

specifications and verifications that 

laboratory instruments must meet, 

according to subparts B, C, and D. 

However, we allow some deviations 

from laboratory specifications. In 

addition to meeting many of the 

laboratory system requirements, a PEMS 

must meet an overall verification 

relative to a series of laboratory 

measurements. This verification 

involves repeating a duty cycle several 

times. This is a comprehensive 

verification of a PEMS. We are also 

adopting a procedure for preparing and 

conducting a field test, and we are 

adopting drift corrections for PEMS 

emission analyzers. Given the evolving 

state of PEMS technology, the fieldtesting procedures provide for a number 

of known measurement techniques. We 

have added provisions and conditions 

for the use of PEMS in an engine 

dynamometer laboratory to conduct 

laboratory testing. 

(xi) Subpart K: Definitions, References, 

and Symbols 

In Subpart K we define terms 

frequently used in part 1065. For 

example we have defined ‘‘brake 

power’’, ‘‘constant-speed engine’’, and 

‘‘aftertreatment’’ to provide more clarity, 

and we have definitions for things such 

as ‘‘300 series stainless steel’’, 

‘‘barometric pressure’’, and ‘‘operator 

demand’’. There are definitions such as 

‘‘duty cycle’’ and ‘‘test interval’’ to 

distinguish the difference between a 

single interval over which brake-specific 

emissions are calculated and the 

complete cycle over which emissions 

are evaluated in a laboratory. We also 

present a thorough and consistent set of 

symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms 

in subpart K. 

(2) Certification Fuel 

It is well-established that measured 

emissions may be affected by the 

properties of the fuel used during the 

test. For this reason, we have 

historically specified allowable ranges 

for test fuel properties such as cetane 

and sulfur content. These specifications 

are intended to represent most typical 

fuels that are commercially available in 

use. This helps to ensure that the 

emissions reductions expected from the 

standards occur in use as well as during 

emissions testing. Because we have 

reduced the upper limit for locomotive 

and marine diesel fuel sulfur content for 

refiners to 15 ppm in 2012, we are 

proposing to establish new ranges of 

allowable sulfur content for diesel test 

fuels. See sectionC.(5) for information 

about testing marine engines designed 

to use residual fuel. 

For marine diesel engines, we are 

proposing the use of ULSD fuel as the 

test fuel for Tier 3 and later standards 

(when the new plain language 

regulations begin to apply). We believe 

this would correspond to the fuels that 

these engines will see in use over the 

long term. We recognize that this 

approach would mean that some marine 

engines would use a test fuel that is 

lower in sulfur than in-use fuel during 

the first few years, and that other Tier 

2 marine engines would use a test fuel 

that is higher in sulfur than fuel already 

available in use when they are 

produced. However, we believe that it is 

more important to align changes in 

marine test fuels with changes in the 

PM standards than strictly with changes 

in the in-use fuel. Nevertheless, we are 

proposing to allow certification with 

fuel meeting the 7 to 15 ppm sulfur 

specification for Tier 2 to simplify 

testing, but would require PM emissions 

to be corrected to be equivalent to 

testing conducted with the specified 

fuel. 

For locomotives, we are proposing to 

require that Tier 4 engines be certified 

based on ULSD test fuels. We are also 

proposing to require that these 

locomotives use ULSD in the field. We 

would continue to allow older 

locomotives to use in the field low 

sulfur diesel (LSD) fuel, which is the 

intermediate grade of fuel with sulfur 

levels between 15 and 500 ppm. Thus, 

we are proposing to require that 

remanufacture systems for most of these 

locomotives be certified on LSD test 

fuel. We are proposing to allow the use 

of test fuels other than those specified 

here. Specifically, we would allow the 

use of ULSD during emission testing for 

locomotives otherwise required to use 

LSD, provided they do not use sulfurVerDate Aug<31>2005 04:54 Apr 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM 03APP2

sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15990 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

sensitive technology (such as oxidation 

catalysts). However, as a condition of 

this allowance, the manufacturer would 

be required to add an additional amount 

to the measured PM emissions to make 

them equivalent to what would have 

been measured using LSD. For example, 

we would allow a manufacturer to test 

with ULSD if they adjusted the 

measured PM emissions upward by 0.01 

g/bhp-hr (which would be a relatively 

conservative adjustment). 

We are proposing special fuel 

provisions for Tier 3 locomotives and 

Tier 2 remanufacture systems. We are 

proposing that the test fuel for these be 

ULSD without sulfur correction since 

these locomotives will use ULSD in use 

for most of their service lives. However, 

unlike Tier 4 locomotives, we would not 

require them to be labeled to require the 

use of ULSD, unless they included 

sulfur sensitive technology. 

We are proposing a new flexibility for 

locomotives and Category 2 marine 

engines to reduce fuel costs for testing. 

Because these engines can consume 200 

gallons of diesel fuel per hour at full 

load, fuel can represent a significant 

fraction of the testing cost, especially if 

the manufacturer must use specially 

blended fuel rather than commercially 

available fuel. To reduce this cost, we 

are proposing to allow manufacturers to 

perform testing of locomotives and 

Category 2 engines with commercially 

available diesel fuel. 

For both locomotive and marine 

engines, all of the specifications 

described above would apply to 

emission testing conducted for 

certification, selective enforcement 

audits, and in-use, as well as any other 

testing for compliance purposes for 

engines in the designated model years. 

Any compliance testing of previous 

model year engines would be done with 

the fuels designated in our regulations 

for those model years. 

(3) Supplemental Emission Standards 

We are proposing to continue the 

supplemental emission standards for 

locomotives and marine engines. For 

locomotives, this means we would 

continue to apply notch emission caps, 

based on the emission rates in each 

notch, as measured during certification 

testing. We recognize that for our Tier 

4 proposed standards it would not be 

practical to measure very low levels of 

PM emissions separately for each notch 

during testing, and thus we are 

proposing a change in the calculation of 

the PM notch cap for Tier 4 

locomotives. All other notch caps would 

be determined and applied as they 

currently are under 40 CFR 92.8(c). See 

§ 1033.101(e) of the proposed 

regulations for the detailed calculation. 

Marine engines would continue to be 

subject to not-to-exceed (NTE) 

standards, however, we are proposing 

certain changes to these standards based 

upon our understanding of in-use 

marine engine operation and based 

upon the underlying Tier 3 and Tier 4 

duty cycle emissions standards that we 

are proposing. As background, we 

determine NTE compliance by first 

applying a multiplier to the duty-cycle 

emission standard, and then we 

compare to that value an emissions 

result that is recorded when an engine 

runs within a certain range of engine 

operation. This range of operation is 

called an NTE zone (see 40 CFR 94.106). 

The first regulation of ours that 

included NTE standards was the 

commercial marine diesel regulation, 

finalized in 1999. After we finalized that 

regulation, we promulgated other NTE 

regulations for both heavy-duty onhighway and nonroad diesel engines. 

We also finalized a regulation that 

requires heavy-duty on-highway engine 

manufacturers to conduct field testing to 

demonstrate in-use compliance with the 

on-highway NTE standards. Throughout 

our development of these other 

regulations, we have learned many 

details about how best to specify NTE 

zones and multipliers that would ensure 

the greatest degree of in-use emissions 

control, while at the same time would 

avoid disproportionately stringent 

requirements for engine operation that 

has only a minor contribution to an 

engine’s overall impact on the 

environment. Based upon the Tier 3 and 

Tier 4 standards we are proposing—and 

our best information of in-use marine 

engine operation—we are proposing 

certain improvements to our marine 

NTE standards. 

For marine engines we are proposing 

a broadening of the NTE zones in order 

to better control emissions in regions of 

engine operation where an engine’s 

emissions rates (i.e. grams/hour, tons/ 

day) are greatest; namely at high engine 

speed and high engine load. This is 

especially important for commercial 

marine engines because they typically 

operate at steady-state at high-speed and 

high-load operation. This proposed 

change also would make our marine 

NTE zones much more similar to our 

on-highway and nonroad NTE zones. 

Additionally, we analyzed different 

ways to define the marine NTE zones, 

and we determined a number of ways to 

improve and simplify the way we define 

and calculate the borders of these zones. 

We feel that these improvements would 

help clarify when an engine is operating 

within a marine NTE zone. Please refer 

to section 1042.101(c) of our draft 

proposed regulations for a description of 

our proposed NTE standards. Note that 

we currently specify different duty 

cycles to which a marine engine may be 

certified, based upon the engine’s 

specific application (e.g., fixed-pitch 

propeller, controllable-pitch propeller, 

constant speed, etc.). Correspondingly, 

we also have a unique NTE zone for 

each of these duty cycles. These 

different NTE zones are intended to best 

reflect an engine’s real-world range of 

operation for that particular application. 

Because we are proposing changes to 

the shapes of these NTE zones, we 

request comment as to whether or not 

these changes best reflect actual in-use 

operation of marine engines. 

We are also proposing changes to the 

NTE multipliers. We have analyzed how 

our proposed Tier 3 and Tier 4 

emissions standards would affect the 

stringency of our current marine NTE 

standards, especially in comparison to 

the stringency of the underlying duty 

cycle standards. We recognized that in 

certain sub-regions of our proposed NTE 

zones, slightly higher multipliers would 

be necessary because of the way that our 

more stringent proposed Tier 3 and Tier 

4 emissions standards would affect the 

stringency of the NTE standards. For 

comparison, our current marine NTE 

standards contain multipliers that range 

in magnitude from 1.2 to 1.5 times the 

corresponding duty cycle standard. In 

the changes we are proposing, the new 

multipliers would range from 1.2 to 1.9 

times the standard. Even with these 

slightly higher NTE multipliers, we are 

confident that our proposed changes to 

the marine NTE standards would ensure 

the greatest degree of in-use emissions 

control. We are also confident that our 

proposed changes to the marine NTE 

standards would continue to ensure 

proportional emissions reductions, 

across the full range of marine engine 

operation. Because we are proposing 

changes to the NTE multipliers, we 

request comment as to whether or not 

these changes best reflect actual in-use 

emissions profiles of marine engines 

throughout the NTE zones we are 

proposing. 

We are also proposing to adopt other 

NTE provisions for marine engines that 

are similar to our existing heavy-duty 

on-highway and nonroad diesel NTE 

standards. We are proposing these 

particular changes to account for the 

implementation of catalytic exhaust 

treatment devices on marine engines 

and to account for when a marine 

engine rarely operates within a limited 

region of the NTE zone (i.e. less than 5 

percent of in-use operation). We feel 

that these provisions have been effective 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15991 

124 69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004. 

in our on-highway and nonroad NTE 

programs; therefore, we are proposing to 

adopt them for our marine NTE 

standards as well. 

We are also proposing for the first 

time auxiliary marine engine NTE 

standards, effective for both Tier 3 and 

Tier 4 auxiliary marine engines. Since 

these engines are similar to nonroad 

constant speed engines, we propose to 

adopt the same NTE standards for 

auxiliary marine engines as we have 

already finalized for nonroad constant 

speed engines. Specifically, these 

engines are engines certified to the ISO 

8178–1 D2 test cycle, illustrated in 40 

CFR § 94.105, Table B–4. Refer to 40CFR 

§ 1039.101(e) for our constant speed 

nonroad engine NTE standards. Because 

we are proposing marine diesel Tier 3 

implementation dates in the 2012 

timeframe, we request comment as to 

whether or not additional lead-time 

might be necessary to marinize and 

certify NTE-compliant nonroad engines 

to the marine diesel Tier 3 standards, 

especially since it will be within that 

same timeframe that the similar nonroad 

Tier 4 engines will be NTE-certified for 

nonroad use. 

We request comment regarding the 

changes we are proposing for the marine 

NTE standards. 

(4) Emission Control Diagnostics 

As described below, we are requesting 

comment on (but not proposing) a 

requirement that all Tier 4 engines 

include simple engine diagnostic system 

to alert operators to general emissionrelated malfunctions. (See section 

IV.A.(7) for related requirements 

involving SCR systems.) We are, 

however, proposing special provisions 

for locomotives that include emission 

related diagnostics. First, we would 

require locomotive operators to respond 

to malfunction indicators by performing 

the required maintenance or inspection. 

Second, locomotive manufacturers 

would be allowed to repair such 

malfunctioning locomotives during inuse compliance testing (they would still 

be required to include a description of 

the malfunction in the in-use testing 

report.). This approach would take 

advantage of the unique market 

structure with two major manufacturers 

and only a few railroads buying nearly 

all of the freshly manufactured 

locomotives. The proposed provisions 

would create incentives for both the 

manufacturers and railroads to work 

together to develop a diagnostic system 

that effectively revealed real emission 

malfunctions. Our current regulations 

already require that locomotive 

operators complete all manufacturerspecified emission-related maintenance 

and this new requirement would treat 

repairs indicated by diagnostic systems 

as such emission-related maintenance. 

Thus, the railroads would have a strong 

incentive to make sure that they only 

had to perform this additional 

maintenance when real malfunctions 

were occurring. On the other hand, 

manufacturers would want to have all 

emission malfunctions revealed so that 

when they test an in-use locomotive 

they could repair identified malfunction 

before testing if the railroad had not yet 

done it. 

At this time, we are requesting 

comment on a adopting a detailed 

regulatory program to require that all 

Tier 4 locomotives and marine engines 

include a specific engine diagnostic 

system. We believe that most of these 

engines will be equipped with a basic 

diagnostic system for other purposes, so 

codifying a uniform convention based 

largely on these preexisting systems 

could be appropriate. Manufacturers 

would generally not be required to 

monitor actual emission levels, but 

rather would be required to monitor 

functionality. Such systems could be 

very helpful in maintaining emission 

performance during the useful life and 

ensuring that malfunctioning marine 

catalysts would be replaced. However, 

we also believe that it might be more 

appropriate to address this issue in a 

future rulemaking in the broader context 

of all nonroad diesel engines. 

(5) Monitoring and Reporting of 

Emissions Related Defects 

We are proposing to apply the defect 

reporting requirements of § 1068.501 to 

replace the provisions of subparts E in 

parts 92 and 94. This would result in 

two significant changes for 

manufacturers. First, § 1068.501 

obligates manufacturers to tell us when 

they learn that emission control systems 

are defective and to conduct 

investigations under certain 

circumstances to determine if an 

emission-related defect is present. 

Manufacturers must initiate these 

investigations when warranty 

information, parts shipments, and any 

other information which is available 

and indicates that a defect investigation 

may be fruitful. For this purpose, we 

consider defective any part or system 

that does not function as originally 

designed for the regulatory useful life of 

the engine or the scheduled replacement 

interval specified in the manufacturer’s 

maintenance instructions. The parts and 

systems are those covered by the 

emissions warranty, and listed in 

Appendix I and II of part 1068. As we 

noted in previous rulemakings, we 

believe the investigation requirement is 

necessary because it will allow both 

EPA and the engine manufacturers to 

fully understand the significance of any 

unusually high rates of warranty claims 

and parts replacements for parts or 

parameters that may have an impact on 

emissions. We believe that as part of its 

normal product quality practices, 

prudent engine manufacturers already 

conduct a thorough investigation when 

available data indicate recurring parts 

failures. Such data is valuable and 

readily available to most manufacturers 

and, under this proposal it must be 

considered to determine whether or not 

there is a possible defect of an emissionrelated part. 

The second change is related to 

reporting thresholds. Defect reports 

submitted in compliance with the 

current regulations are based on a single 

threshold applicable to engine families 

of all production volumes. The single 

threshold in the existing regulations 

rarely results in reporting of defects in 

the smallest engine families covered by 

this regulation because a relatively high 

proportion of such engines would have 

to be known to be defective before 

reporting is required under a fixed 

threshold scheme. Therefore, under 

§ 1068.501, the threshold for reporting 

for the smallest engine families would 

generally be decreased as compared to 

the current requirements. These 

thresholds were established during our 

rulemaking adopting Tier 4 standards 

for nonroad diesel engines.124 Those 

engines are substantially similar to the 

engines used in the marine and 

locomotive sectors, and thus, we believe 

that these thresholds will also be 

appropriate for these engines. 

We are aware that accumulation of 

warranty claims and part shipments will 

likely include many claims and parts 

that do not represent defects, so we are 

establishing a relatively high threshold 

for triggering the manufacturer’s 

responsibility to investigate whether 

there is, in fact, a real occurrence of an 

emission-related defect. Manufacturers 

are not required to count towards the 

investigation threshold any replacement 

parts they require to be replaced at 

specified intervals during the useful life, 

as specified in the application for 

certification and maintenance 

instructions to the owner, because 

shipments of such parts clearly do not 

represent defects. All such parts would 

be excluded from investigation of 

potential defects and reporting of 

defects, whether or not any specific part 

was, in fact, shipped for specified 

replacement. This proposal is intended 

to require manufacturers to use 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15992 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

information we would expect them to 

keep in the normal course of business. 

We believe in most cases manufacturers 

would not be required to institute new 

programs or activities to monitor 

product quality or performance. A 

manufacturer that does not keep 

warranty or replacement part 

information may ask for our approval to 

use an alternate defect-reporting 

methodology that is at least as effective 

in identifying and tracking potential 

emissions related defects as the 

proposed requirements. However, until 

we approve such a request, the 

proposed thresholds and procedures 

continue to apply. 

The thresholds for investigation are 

generally ten percent of total production 

to date with special limits for small 

volume engine families. Please note, 

manufacturers would not investigate for 

emission related defects until either 

warranty claims or parts shipments 

separately reach the investigation 

threshold. We recognize that a part 

shipment may ultimately be associated 

with a particular warranty claim in the 

manufacturer’s database and, therefore, 

warranty claims and parts shipments 

would not be aggregated for the purpose 

of triggering the investigation threshold 

under this proposal. 

The second threshold in this proposal 

specifies when a manufacturer must 

report that there is an emission-related 

defect. This threshold involves a smaller 

number of engines because each 

potential defect would have been 

screened to confirm that it is an 

emission-related defect. In counting 

engines to compare with the defectreporting threshold, the manufacturer 

would consider a single engine family 

and model year. However, when a 

defect report is required, the 

manufacturer would report all 

occurrences of the same defect in all 

engine families and all model years 

which use the same part. For engines 

subject to this proposal, the threshold 

for reporting a defect is two percent of 

total production for any single engine 

family with special limits for small 

volume engine families. It is important 

to note that while we regard occurrence 

of the defect threshold as proof of the 

existence of a reportable defect, we do 

not regard that occurrence as conclusive 

proof that recall or other action is 

merited. 

If the number of engines with a 

specific defect is found to be less than 

the threshold for submitting a defect 

report, but information, such as 

warranty claims or parts shipment data, 

later indicates additional potentially 

defective engines, under this proposal 

the information must be aggregated for 

the purpose of determining whether the 

threshold for submitting a defect report 

has been met. If a manufacturer has 

actual knowledge from any source that 

the threshold for submitting a defect 

report has been met, a defect report 

would have to be submitted even if the 

trigger for investigating has not yet been 

met. For example, if manufacturers 

receive information from their dealers, 

technical staff or other field personnel 

showing conclusively that there is a 

recurring emission-related defect, they 

would have to submit a defect report if 

the submission threshold is reached. 

For both the investigation and 

reporting thresholds, § 1068.501 

specifies lower thresholds for very large 

engines over 560 kW. A defect in these 

engines can have a much greater impact 

than defects in smaller engines due to 

their higher gram per hour emission 

rates and the increased likelihood that 

such large engines will be used more 

continuously. 

(6) Rated Power 

We are proposing to specify how to 

determine maximum engine power in 

the regulations for both locomotives and 

marine engines. The term ‘‘maximum 

engine power’’ would be used for 

marine engines instead of previously 

undefined terms such as ‘‘rated power’’

or ‘‘power rating’’ to specify the 

applicability of the standards. We are 

not proposing to define these terms for 

our purposes because they already have 

commercial meanings. The addition of 

this definition is intended to allow for 

more objective applicability of the 

standards. More specifically, for marine 

engines, we are proposing that 

maximum engine power would mean 

the maximum brake power output on 

the nominal power curve for an engine. 

Currently, rated power and power 

rating are undefined and are specified 

by the manufacturer during 

certification. This makes the 

applicability of the standards 

unnecessarily subjective and confusing. 

One manufacturer may choose to define 

rated power as the maximum measured 

power output, while another may define 

it as the maximum measured power at 

a specific engine speed. Using this 

second approach, an engine’s rated 

power may be somewhat less than the 

true maximum power output of the 

engine. Given the importance of engine 

power in defining which standards an 

engine must meet and when, we believe 

that it is critical that a singular power 

value be determined objectively 

according to a specific regulatory 

definition. 

For locomotives, the term ‘‘rated 

power’’ will continue to be used, but 

would be explicitly defined to be the 

brakepower of the engine at notch 8. We 

would continue to use the term ‘‘rated 

power’’ because this definition is 

consistent with the commercial meaning 

of the term. 

We are also adding a clarification to 

the regulations for both locomotives and 

marine engines to recognize that actual 

engine power varies to some degree 

during production. Manufacturers 

would specify maximum engine power 

(or rated power for locomotives) based 

on the design specifications for the 

engine (or locomotive). Measured power 

from actual production engines would 

be allowed to vary from that 

specification to some degree based on 

normal production variability. The 

expected production variability would 

be described by the manufacturer in its 

application. If the engines that are 

actually produced are different from 

those described in the application for 

certification, the manufacturer would be 

required to amend its application. 

Finally, we are requesting comment 

on whether we need to specify more 

precisely how to determine alternator/ 

generator efficiency for locomotive 

testing. In locomotive testing, engine 

power is not generally measured 

directly, but rather is calculated from 

the measured electrical output of the 

onboard alternator/generator and the 

alternator/generator’s efficiency. Thus, 

it is important that the efficiency be 

calculated in a consistent manner. 

Specifically, we are requesting comment 

on whether to require that the efficiency 

be determined (and applied) separately 

for each notch, and whether a specific 

test procedure is necessary. 

(7) In-Use Compliance for SCR 

Operation 

As discussed in section III.D, we are 

projecting that manufacturers would use 

urea-based SCR systems to comply with 

the proposed Tier 4 emission standards. 

These systems are very effective at 

controlling NOX emissions as long as 

the operator continues to supply urea of 

acceptable quality. Thus we have 

considered concepts put forward by 

manufacturers in other mobile source 

sectors in dealing with this issue that 

include design features to prevent an 

engine from being operated without 

urea if an operator ignores repeated 

warnings and allows the urea level to 

run too low. EPA has recently issued a 

proposed guidance document for urea 

SCR systems discussing the use of such 

features on highway diesel vehicles. 

Although we request comment on our 

adopting requirements for 

manufacturers on the design of SCR 

systems to ensure use of urea, we 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15993 

believe that the nature of the locomotive 

and large commercial marine sectors 

supports a different in-use compliance 

approach. This approach would focus 

on requirements for operators of 

locomotives and marine diesel engines 

that depend on urea SCR to meet EPA 

standards, aided by onboard alarm and 

logging mechanisms that engine 

manufacturers would be required to 

include in their engine designs. Except 

in the rare instance that operation 

without urea may be necessary, the 

regulatory provisions proposed here put 

no burden on the end-user beyond 

simply filling the urea tank with 

appropriate quality urea. Specifically, 

we are proposing: 

• That it be illegal to operate without 

acceptable quality urea when the urea is 

needed to keep the SCR system 

functioning properly. 

• That manufacturers must include 

clear and prominent instructions to the 

operator on the need for, and proper 

steps for, maintaining urea, including a 

statement that it is illegal to operate the 

engine without urea. 

• That manufacturers must include 

visible and audible alarms at the 

operator’s console to warn of low urea 

levels or inadequate urea quality. 

• That engines and locomotives must 

be designed to track and log, in 

nonvolatile computer memory, all 

incidents of engine operation with 

inadequate urea injection or urea 

quality. 

• That operators must report to EPA 

in writing any incidence of operation 

with inadequate urea injection or urea 

quality within 30 days of each incident. 

• That, when requested, locomotive 

and vessel operators must provide EPA 

with access to, and assistance in 

obtaining information from, the 

electronic onboard incident logs. 

We understand that in extremely rare 

circumstances, such as during a 

temporary emergency involving risk of 

personal injury, it may be necessary to 

operate a vessel or locomotive without 

adequate urea. We would intend such 

extenuating circumstances to be taken 

into account when considering what 

penalties or other actions are 

appropriate as a result of such 

operation. The information from SCR 

compliance monitoring systems 

described above may also be useful for 

state and local air quality agencies and 

ports to assist them in any marine 

engine compliance programs they 

implement. States and localities could 

require operators to make this 

information available to them in 

implementing such programs. 

We propose that what constitutes 

acceptable urea solution quality be 

specified by the manufacturers in their 

maintenance instructions, with the 

requirement that the certified emission 

control system must meet the emissions 

standards with any urea solution within 

stated specifications. This will be 

facilitated by an industry standard for 

urea quality, which we expect will be 

generated in the future as these systems 

move closer to market. We recognize 

that requiring onboard detection of 

inadequate urea quality implies the 

need for automated sensing of some 

characteristic indicator such as urea 

concentration or exhaust NOX

concentration. We request comment on 

how this can be best managed to 

minimize the complexity and cost while 

at the same time precluding tampering 

through such means as adding water to 

the urea tank. We request comment on 

additional compliance provisions, such 

as mandatory recordkeeping of fuel and 

urea consumption for each SCRequipped locomotive or vessel, with 

periodic reporting requirements. 

We believe these proposed provisions 

can be an effective tool in ensuring urea 

use for locomotives and large 

commercial marine vessels because of 

the relatively small number of railroads 

and operators of large commercial 

vessels in the U.S., especially 

considering that the number of SCRequipped locomotives and vessels will 

ramp up quite gradually over time. Inuse compliance provisions of the sort 

we are proposing for locomotives and 

large commercial marine engines would 

be much less effective in other mobile 

source sectors such as highway vehicles 

because successful enforcement 

involving millions of vehicle owners 

would be extremely difficult. The 

incident logging or recordkeeping 

requirements could be effective tools for 

detecting in-use problems besides nourea or poor-quality urea, such as other 

tampering or malmaintenance, or 

operation with broken or frozen urea 

dosing systems. We request comment on 

all aspects of the urea maintenance 

issue, including other measures we 

should require of manufacturers and 

operators of SCR-equipped engines, and 

on the definition of a temporary 

emergency. 

(8) Fuel Labels and Misfueling 

In our previous regulation of in-use 

locomotive and marine diesel fuel, we 

established a 15 ppm sulfur standard at 

the refinery gate for locomotive and 

marine (LM) diesel fuel beginning June 

1, 2012. However, we set the 

downstream standard for LM diesel fuel 

at 500 ppm sulfur. In this way the LM 

diesel fuel pool could remain an outlet 

for off-specification distillate product 

and interface/transmix material. 

Because refiners cannot intentionally 

produce off-specification fuel for 

locomotives, most in-use locomotive 

and marine diesel fuel will be ULSD 

(which contains less than 15 ppm 

sulfur). Nevertheless, we expect that 

some fuel will be available with sulfur 

levels between 15 and 500 ppm. 

The advance emission controls that 

would be used to comply with many of 

the new standards will require the use 

of ULSD. Therefore, we are proposing a 

requirement that manufacturers notify 

each purchaser of a Tier 4 locomotive or 

marine engine that it must be fueled 

only with the ultra low-sulfur diesel 

fuel meeting our regulations. We also 

propose to apply this requirement for 

locomotives and engines having sulfursensitive technology and certified using 

ULSD. We are also proposing that all of 

these locomotives and vessels must be 

labeled near the refueling inlet to say: 

‘‘Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only’’. 

These labels would be required to be 

affixed or updated any time any engine 

on a vessel is replaced after the 

proposed program goes into effect. 

We are proposing to require the use of 

ULSD in locomotives and vessels 

labeled as requiring such use, including 

all Tier 4 locomotives and marine 

engines. More specifically, we are 

proposing that use of the wrong fuel for 

locomotives or marine engines would be 

a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) 

because use of the wrong fuel would 

have the effect of disabling the emission 

controls. We request comment on the 

need for these measures and on 

additional ideas for preventing 

misfueling. 

(9) Emission Data Engine Selection 

Some marine manufacturers have 

expressed concern over the current 

provisions in our regulation for 

selection of an emission data engine. 

Part 94 specifies that a marine 

manufacturer must select for testing 

from each engine family the engine 

configuration which is expected to be 

worst-case for exhaust emission 

compliance on in-use engines. Some 

manufacturers have interpreted this to 

mean that they must test all the ratings 

within an engine family to determine 

which is the worst-case. 

Understandably, this interpretation 

could cause production problems for 

many manufacturers due to the lead 

time needed to test a large volume of 

engines. Our view is that the current 

provisions do not necessitate testing of 

all ratings within an engine family. 

Rather, manufacturers are allowed to 

base their selection on good engineering 

judgment, taking into consideration 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15994 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

125Part 1045 is scheduled to be proposed just 

before this proposed rule. 

engine features and characteristics 

which, from experience, are known to 

produce the highest emissions. This 

methodology is consistent with the 

provisions for our on-highway and 

nonroad engine programs. Therefore, we 

are proposing to keep essentially the 

same language in part 1042 as is in part 

94. 

We are proposing to adopt similar 

language for locomotives and apply it in 

the same manner as we do for marine 

engines. 

(10) Deterioration Factor Plan 

Requirements 

In this rulemaking, we are proposing 

to amend our deterioration factor (DF) 

provisions to include an explicit 

requirement that DF plans be submitted 

by manufacturers for our approval in 

advance of conducting engine durability 

testing, or in the case where no new 

durability testing is being conducted, in 

advance of submitting the engine 

certification application. We are not 

proposing to fundamentally change 

either the locomotive or marine engine 

DF requirements other than to require 

advance approval. 

An advance submittal and approval 

format would allow us sufficient time to 

ensure consistency in DF procedures, 

without the need for manufacturers to 

repeat any durability testing or for us to 

deny an application for certification 

should we find the procedures to be 

inconsistent with the regulatory 

provisions. We would expect that the 

DF plan would outline the amount of 

service accumulation to be conducted 

for each engine family, the design of the 

representative in-use duty cycle on 

which service will be accumulated, and 

the quantity of emission tests to be 

conducted over the service 

accumulation period. We request 

comment on other items that should be 

included in the DF plan. 

(11) Labeling Simplification 

Our current engine regulations (i.e., 

Part 86, Part 89, Part 94, etc.) have 

similar but not identical provisions for 

emission certification labels. These 

requirements can vary from regulation 

to regulation and in many cases may 

request labeling information that 

manufacturers feel is either not relevant 

for modern electronic engines or can be 

made readily available through other 

sources. In response to manufacturer 

concerns, we request comment on the 

concept of developing a common 

labeling regulation, similar to our 

consolidation of testing and compliance 

provisions into part 1068. Commenters 

supporting a common labeling 

requirement for diesel engines, should 

address in detail the requirements of 40 

CFR 1039.135 and 86.007–35 (including 

reserved text) along with the labeling 

sections being proposed in this notice 

(1033.135 and 1042.135). 

(12) Production Line Testing 

We propose to continue the existing 

production line testing provisions that 

apply to manufacturers. Some 

manufacturers have suggested that we 

should eliminate this requirement on 

the basis that very low noncompliance 

rates are being detected at a high 

expense. We disagree. As we move 

toward more stringent emission 

standards with this rulemaking, we 

anticipate that the margin of compliance 

with the standards for these engines is 

likely to decrease. Consequently, this 

places an even greater significance on 

the need to ensure little variation in 

production engines from the 

certification engine, which is often a 

prototype engine. For this reason, it is 

important to maintain our production 

line testing program. However, the 

existing regulations allow 

manufacturers to develop alternate 

programs that provide equivalent 

assurance of compliance on the 

production line, and to use such 

programs instead of the specified 

production line testing program. For 

example, given the small sales volumes 

associated with marine engines it may 

be appropriate to include a production 

verification program for marine engines 

as part of a manufacturer’s broader 

production verification programs for its 

nonmarine engines. We believe these 

existing provisions already address the 

concerns raised to us by the 

manufacturers. Nevertheless, we 

welcome comments regarding the 

appropriateness of the current 

provisions. 

We are asking for comment on 

whether manufacturers should be 

allowed to use special procedures for 

production line testing of catalystequipped engines. For example, should 

we allow the use of a previously 

stabilized catalyst instead of an 

unstabilized (or green) catalyst? If we 

allow this approach, should we require 

some additional procedure for ensuring 

proper in-use operation of the 

production catalysts? Should we allow 

manufacturers to demonstrate that the 

diagnostic system is capable of verifying 

proper function of the emission 

controls? Alternatively for locomotives, 

should we allow a locomotive selected 

for testing to be introduced into service 

before testing, provided that it is tested 

within the first 10,000 miles of 

operation? 

(13) Evaporative Emission Requirements 

While nearly all locomotives 

currently subject to part 92 are fueled 

with diesel fuel, § 92.7 includes 

evaporative emission provisions that 

would apply for locomotives fueled by 

a volatile liquid fuel such as gasoline or 

ethanol. These regulations do not 

specify test procedures or specific 

numerical limits, but rather set a ‘‘good 

engineering’’ requirements. We propose 

to adopt these same requirements in 

part 1033 and request comment on the 

need to specify a test procedure and 

specific numerical limits. 

We are also proposing to adopt 

similar requirements for marine engines 

and vessels that run on volatile fuels. 

We are not aware of any marine engines 

currently being produced that would be 

subject to these requirements, but 

believe that it would be appropriate to 

adopt these requirements now, rather 

than waiting until such engines are 

produced because it would provide 

manufacturers certainty. Specifically, 

we are proposing that if someone were 

to build a marine vessel to use a 

compression-ignition engine that runs 

on a volatile liquid fuel, the engine 

would be subject to the exhaust 

standards of part 1042, but the fuel 

system would be subject to the 

evaporative emission requirements of 

the recently proposed part 1045.125

(14) Small Business Provisions 

There are a number of small 

businesses that would be subject to this 

proposal because they are locomotive 

manufacturers/remanufacturers, 

railroads, marine engine manufacturers, 

post-manufacture marinizers, or vessel 

builders. We are proposing to largely 

continue the existing provisions that 

were adopted previously for these small 

businesses in the 1998 Locomotive and 

Locomotive Engines Rule (April 16, 

1998; 63 FR 18977); our 1999 

Commercial Marine Diesel Engines Rule 

(December 29, 1999; 64 FR 73299); and 

our 2002 Recreational Diesel Marine 

program (November 8, 2002; 67 FR 

68304). These provisions, which are 

discussed below, are designed to 

minimize regulatory burdens on small 

businesses needing added flexibility to 

comply with emission standards while 

still ensuring the greatest emissions 

reductions achievable. (See section 

VIII.C of this proposed rule for 

discussion of our outreach efforts with 

small entities.) We request comment on 

whether continuing these provisions is 

appropriate. We also request comment 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15995 

126U.S. EPA, Assessment and Standards Division, 

Memorandum from Chester J. France to Alexander 

Cristofaro of U.S. EPA’s Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation, Locomotive and 

Marine Diesel RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis, 

September 25, 2006. 

on whether additional flexibilities are 

needed. 

(a) Locomotive Sector 

A significant portion of the 

locomotive remanufacturing and 

railroad industry is made up of small 

businesses. As such, these companies 

do not tend to have the financial 

resources or technical expertise to 

quickly respond to the requirements 

contained in today’s proposed rule. 

Therefore, as mentioned earlier, we 

would continue the existing provisions 

described below. 

(i) Production-Line and In-Use Testing 

Does Not Apply 

Production-line and in-use testing 

requirements would not apply to small 

locomotive remanufacturers until 

January 1, 2013, which would be up to 

five calendar years after this proposed 

program becomes effective. The 

advantage of this approach would be to 

minimize compliance testing during the 

first five calendar years. 

In the 1998 Locomotive Rule (April 

16, 1998; 63 FR 18977), the in-use 

testing exemption was provided to small 

remanufacturers with locomotives or 

locomotive engines that became new 

during the 5-year delay, and this 

exemption was applicable to these 

locomotives or locomotive engines for 

their entire useful life (the exemption 

was based on model years within the 

delay period, but not calendar years as 

we are proposing today). As an 

amendment to the existing in-use testing 

exemption, we are proposing that small 

remanufacturers with these new 

locomotives or locomotive engines 

would be required to begin complying 

with the in-use testing requirements 

after the five-year delay, January 1, 2013 

(exemption based on calendar years). 

Thus, they would no longer have an 

exemption from in-use testing for the 

entire useful life of a locomotive or a 

locomotive engine. We want to ensure 

that small remanufacturers would 

comply with our standards in-use, and 

subsequently, the public can be assured 

they are receiving the air quality 

benefits of the proposed standards. In 

addition, this proposed amendment 

would provide a date certain for small 

remanufacturers on when the in-use 

testing requirements would begin to 

apply. 

(ii) Small Railroads Exempt From New 

Standards for Existing Fleet 

For locomotives in their existing 

fleets, the Tier 0 remanufacturing 

requirements would not apply to 

railroads qualifying as small businesses. 

The definition of small business 

currently used by EPA is same as the 

definition used by the Small Business 

Administration, which is based on 

employment. For line-haul railroads the 

threshold is 1,500 or fewer employees, 

and for short-haul railroads it is 500 or 

fewer employees. Previously we 

believed that small railroads were not 

likely to remanufacture their 

locomotives to ‘‘as new’’ condition in 

most cases, so their locomotives would 

be generally excluded from the 

definition of ‘‘new’’. 

We are requesting comment on 

whether the current provisions for 

railroads qualifying as small businesses 

have been effective and appropriate, on 

whether they should continue under the 

new program, and, if so, on whether the 

existing employee thresholds are 

appropriate for the purpose of this 

rulemaking or whether a new threshold 

based on revenue would be appropriate. 

Based on the increased efficiencies 

associated with railroad operations, we 

believe a railroad with 500 or fewer 

employees can be viewed as a medium 

to large business. We believe a different 

approach based on annual revenues may 

be more appropriate. For example, 

should we limit the category of ‘‘small 

railroad’’ to only those railroads that 

qualify as Class III railroads and that are 

not owned by a larger company? Under 

the current classification system, this 

would limit the exemption to railroads 

having total revenue less than $25 

million per year. 

We are clarifying in our definition 

that intercity passenger or commuter 

railroads are not included as railroads 

that are small businesses because they 

are typically governmental or are large 

businesses. Due to the nature of their 

business, these entities are largely 

funded through tax transfers and other 

subsidies. Thus, the only passenger 

railroads that could qualify for the small 

railroad provisions would be small 

passenger railroads related to tourism. 

We invite comment on whether any 

intercity passenger or commuter 

railroads would need this exemption for 

locomotives in their existing fleet. 

(iii) Small Railroads Excluded From InUse Testing Program 

The railroad in-use testing program 

would continue to only apply to Class 

I freight railroads, and thus, no small 

railroads would be subject to this testing 

requirement. It is important to note that 

most, but not all Class II and III freight 

railroads qualify as small businesses. 

This provision provides flexibility to all 

Class II and III railroads, which includes 

small railroads. All Class I freight 

railroads are large businesses. 126

(iv) Hardship Provisions 

Section 1068.245 of the existing 

regulations in title 40 contains hardship 

provisions for engine and equipment 

manufacturers, including those that are 

small businesses. We are proposing to 

apply this section for locomotives as 

described below. 

Under this unusual circumstances 

hardship provision, locomotive 

manufacturers may apply for hardship 

relief if circumstances outside their 

control cause the failure to comply and 

if the failure to sell the subject 

locomotives would have a major impact 

on the company’s solvency. An example 

of an unusual circumstance outside a 

manufacturer’s control may be an ‘‘Act 

of God,’’ a fire at the manufacturing 

plant, or the unforeseen shut down of a 

supplier with no alternative available. 

The terms and time frame of the relief 

would depend on the specific 

circumstances of the company and the 

situation involved. As part of its 

application for hardship, a company 

would be required to provide a 

compliance plan detailing when and 

how it would achieve compliance with 

the standards. 

(b) Marine Sector 

There are numerous small businesses 

that marinize engines for marine use or 

build vessels. These businesses do not 

necessarily have the financial resources 

or technical expertise to quickly 

respond to the requirements contained 

in today’s proposed rule. To address 

this issue, we propose to continue most 

of the existing provisions, as described 

below. 

(i) Revised Definitions of Small-Volume 

Manufacturer and Small-Volume Boat 

Builder 

We propose to revise the definitions 

of small-volume manufacturer (SVM) 

and small-volume boat builder to 

include worldwide production. 

Currently, an SVM is defined as a 

manufacturer with annual U.S.-directed 

production of fewer than 1,000 engines 

(marine and nonmarine engines), and a 

small-volume boat builder is defined as 

a boat manufacturer with fewer than 500 

employees and with annual U.S.- 

directed production of fewer than 100 

boats. By proposing to include 

worldwide production in these 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15996 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

127U.S. EPA, Assessment and Standards Division, 

Memorandum from Chester J. France to Alexander 

CristoFaro of the U.S. EPA’s Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation, Locomotive and 

Marine Diesel RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis, 

September 25, 2006. 

definitions, we would prevent a 

manufacturer or boat builder with a 

large worldwide production of engines 

or boats, or a large worldwide presence, 

from receiving relief from the 

requirements of this program. As 

discussed above, the provisions that 

apply to small-volume manufacturers 

and small-volume boat builders as 

described below are intended to 

minimize the impact of this rule for 

those entities that do not have the 

financial resources to quickly respond 

to requirements in the proposed rule. 

(ii) Broader Engine Families and Testing 

Relief 

Broader engine families: Postmanufacture marinizers (PMMs) and 

SVMs would be allowed to continue to 

group all commercial Category 1 engines 

into one engine family for certification 

purposes, all recreational engines into 

one engine family, and all Category 2 

engines into one family. As with 

existing regulations, these entities 

would be responsible for certifying 

based on the ‘‘worst-case’’ emitting 

engine. The advantage of this approach 

is that it would minimize certification 

testing because the marinizer and SVMs 

can use a single engine in the first year 

to certify their whole product line. In 

addition, marinizers and SVMs could 

then carry-over data from year to year 

until changing engine designs in a way 

that might significantly affect emissions. 

We understand that this broad engine 

family provision still would require a 

certification test and the associated 

burden for small-volume manufacturers. 

We realize that the test costs are spread 

over low sales volumes, and we 

recognize that it may be difficult to 

determine the worst-case emitter 

without additional testing. We would 

require testing because we need a 

reliable, test-based technical basis to 

issue a certificate for these engines. 

However, manufacturers would be able 

to use carryover to spread costs over 

multiple years of production. 

Production-line and deterioration 

testing: In addition, SVMs producing 

engines less than or equal to 800 hp 

(600 kW) would be exempted from 

production-line and deterioration 

testing for the proposed Tier 3 

standards. We would assign a 

deterioration factor for use in 

calculating end-of-useful life emission 

factors for certification. This approach 

would minimize compliance testing 

since production-line and deterioration 

testing would be more extensive than a 

single certification test. The Tier 3 

standards proposed for these engines are 

expected to be engine-out standards and 

would not require the use of 

aftertreatment—similar to the existing 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. The Tier 4 

standards proposed for engines greater 

than 800 hp (600 kW) are expected to 

require aftertreatment emission-control 

devices. Currently, we are not aware of 

any SVMs that produce engines greater 

than 800 hp (600 kW), except for one 

marinizer that plans to discontinue their 

production in the near future.127 As a 

proposed revision to the existing 

provisions, we would not apply these 

production-line and deterioration 

testing exemptions to SVMs that begin 

producing these larger engines in the 

future due to the sophistication of 

manufacturers that produce engines 

with aftertreatment technology. These 

manufacturers would have the resources 

to conduct both the design and 

development work for the aftertreatment 

emission-control technology, along with 

production-line and deterioration 

testing. We invite comments on this 

proposed revision. 

(iii) Delayed Standards 

One-year delay: Post-manufacture 

marinizers generally depend on engine 

manufacturers producing base engines 

for marinizing. This can delay the 

certification of the marinized engines. 

There may be situations in which, 

despite its best efforts, a marinizer 

cannot meet the implementation dates, 

even with the provisions described in 

this section. Such a situation may occur 

if an engine supplier without a major 

business interest in a marinizer were to 

change or drop an engine model very 

late in the implementation process, or 

was not able to supply the marinizer 

with an engine in sufficient time for the 

marinizer to recertify the engine. Based 

on this concern, we propose to allow a 

one-year delay in the implementation 

dates of the Tier 3 standards for postmanufacture marinizers qualifying as 

small businesses (the definition of small 

business used by EPA for these 

provisions for manufacturers of new 

marine diesel engines—or other engine 

equipment manufacturing—is 1,000 or 

fewer employees) and producing 

engines less than or equal to 800 hp 

(600 kW). As described earlier, the Tier 

4 standards proposed for engines greater 

than 800 hp (600 kW) are expected to 

require aftertreatment emission-control 

devices. We would not apply this oneyear delay to small PMMs that begin 

marinizing these larger engines in the 

future due to the sophistication of 

entities that produce engines with 

aftertreatment technology. We would 

expect that the large base engine 

manufacturer (with the needed 

resources), not the small PMM, would 

conduct both the design and 

development work for the aftertreatment 

emission-control technology, and they 

would also take on the certification 

responsibility in the future. Thus, the 

small PMM marinizing large engines 

would not need a one-year delay. We 

invite comments on this proposed 

revision. 

Three-year delay for not-to-exceed 

(NTE) requirements: Additional lead 

time is also appropriate for PMMs to 

demonstrate compliance with NTE 

requirements. Their reliance on another 

company’s base engines affects the time 

needed for the development and testing 

work needed to comply. Thus, PMMs 

qualifying as small businesses and 

producing engines less than or equal to 

800 hp (600 kW) could also delay 

compliance with the NTE requirements 

by up to three years, for the Tier 3 

standards. Three years of extra lead time 

(compared to one year for the primary 

certification standards) would be 

appropriate considering their more 

limited resources. As described earlier, 

the Tier 4 standards proposed for 

engines greater than 800 hp (600 kW) 

are expected to require aftertreatment 

emission-control devices. We would not 

apply this three-year delay to small 

PMMs that begin marinizing these larger 

engines in the future due to the 

sophistication of entities that produce 

engines with aftertreatment technology. 

We would expect that the large base 

engine manufacturer (with the needed 

resources), not the small PMM, would 

conduct both the design and 

development work for the aftertreatment 

emission-control technology, and they 

would also take on the certification 

responsibility in the future. Thus, the 

small PMM marinizing large engines 

would not need a three-year delay for 

compliance with the NTE requirements. 

We invite comments on this proposed 

revision. 

Five-year delay for recreational 

engines: For recreational marine diesel 

engines, the existing regulations (2002 

Recreational Diesel Marine program; 

November 8, 2002, 67 FR 68304) allow 

small-volume manufacturers up to a 

five-year delay for complying with the 

standards. However, we do not plan to 

continue this provision. As discussed 

earlier, the Tier 3 standards proposed 

for these engines are expected to be 

engine-out standards and would not 

require the use of aftertreatment—

similar to the existing Tier 1 and Tier 

2 standards. The Tier 4 standards 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15997 

proposed for engines greater than 800 

hp (600 kW) are expected to require 

aftertreatment emission-control devices. 

For the recreational marine sector, most 

of the engines are less than or equal to 

800 hp (kW). To meet the Tier 3 

standards, the design and development 

effort is expected to be for recalibration 

work, which is much less than the work 

for Tier 4 standards. Also, Tier 3 

engines are expected to require far less 

in terms of new hardware, and in fact, 

are expected to only require upgrades to 

existing hardware (i.e., new fuel 

systems). In addition, manufacturers 

have experience with engine-out 

standards from the existing Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 standards, and thus, they have 

learned how to comply with such 

standards. Thus, small-volume 

manufacturers of recreational marine 

diesel engines do not need more time to 

meet the new standards. For small 

PMMs of recreational marine diesel 

engines, the one-year delay described 

earlier would provide enough time for 

these entities to meet the proposed 

standards. We invite comment on 

discontinuing this provision for a 5-year 

delay. 

(iv) Engine Dressing Exemption 

Marine engine dressers would 

continue to be exempted from 

certification and compliance 

requirements. Many marine diesel 

engine manufacturers take a new, landbased engine and modify it for 

installation on a marine vessel. Some of 

the companies that modify an engine for 

installation on a vessel make no changes 

that might affect emissions. Instead, the 

modifications may consist of adding 

mounting hardware and a generator or 

reduction gears for propulsion. It can 

also involve installing a new marine 

cooling system that meets original 

manufacturer specifications and 

duplicates the cooling characteristics of 

the land-based engine, but with a 

different cooling medium (such as sea 

water). In many ways, these 

manufacturers are similar to nonroad 

equipment manufacturers that purchase 

certified land-based nonroad engines to 

make auxiliary engines. This simplified 

approach of producing an engine can 

more accurately be described as 

dressing an engine for a particular 

application. Because the modified landbased engines are subsequently used on 

a marine vessel, however, these 

modified engines would be considered 

marine diesel engines, which would 

then fall under these requirements. 

To clarify the responsibilities of 

engine dressers under this proposed 

rule, while we would continue to 

consider them to be manufacturers of a 

marine diesel engine, they would not be 

required to obtain a certificate of 

conformity (as long as they ensure that 

the original label remains on the engine 

and report annually to EPA that the 

engine models that are exempt pursuant 

to this provision). This would be an 

extension of § 94.907 of the existing 

regulations. For further details of engine 

dressers responsibilities see § 1042.605 

of the proposed regulations. 

(v) Vessel Builder Provisions 

For recreational marine engines, the 

existing regulations (2002 Recreational 

Diesel Marine program; November 8, 

2002, 67 FR 68304) allow manufacturers 

with a written request from a smallvolume boat builder to produce a 

limited number of uncertified engines 

(over a five-year period)—an amount 

equal to 80-percent of the vessel 

manufacturer’s sales for one year. For 

boat builders with very small 

production volumes, this 80-percent 

allowance could be exceeded, as long as 

sales do not exceed 10 engines in any 

one year nor 20 total engines over five 

years and applies only to engines less 

than or equal to 2.5 liters per cylinder. 

However, we do not plan to continue 

this provision. The vast majority of the 

recreational marine engines would be 

subject only to the Tier 3 engine-out 

standards that are not expected to 

change the physical characteristics of 

engines (Tier 3 standards would not 

result in a larger engine or otherwise 

require any more space within a vessel). 

This is similar to the Tier 2 engine-out 

standards, and thus, we believe this 

provision is not necessary anymore as 

boat builders are not expected to need 

to redesign engine compartments of 

boats, for engines meeting Tier 3 

standards. We invite comment on 

discontinuing this provision for boat 

builders. 

(vi) Hardship Provisions 

Sections 1068.245, 1068.250 and 

1068.255 of the existing regulations in 

title 40 contain hardship provisions for 

engine and equipment manufacturers, 

including those that are small 

businesses. We are proposing to apply 

these sections for marine applications 

which would effectively continue 

existing hardship provisions as 

described below. 

PMMs and SVMs: We are proposing to 

continue two existing hardship 

provisions for PMMs and SVMs. They 

may apply for this relief on an annual 

basis. First, under an economic 

hardship provision, PMMs and SVMs 

may petition us for additional lead time 

to comply with the standards. They 

must show that they have taken all 

possible business, technical, and 

economic steps to comply, but the 

burden of compliance costs will have a 

major impact on their company’s 

solvency. As part of its application of 

hardship, a company would be required 

to provide a compliance plan detailing 

when and how it would achieve 

compliance with the standards. 

Hardship relief could include 

requirements for interim emission 

reductions and/or purchase and use of 

emission credits. The length of the 

hardship relief decided during initial 

review would be up to one year, with 

the potential to extend the relief as 

needed. We anticipate that one to two 

years would normally be sufficient. 

Also, if a certified base engine is 

available, the PMMs and SVMs must 

generally use this engine. We believe 

this provision would protect PMMs and 

SVMs from undue hardship due to 

certification burden. Also, some 

emission reduction can be gained if a 

certified base engine becomes available. 

See the proposed regulatory text in 40 

CFR 1068.250 for additional 

information. 

Second, under the unusual 

circumstances hardship provision, 

PMMs and SVMs may also apply for 

hardship relief if circumstances outside 

their control cause the failure to comply 

and if the failure to sell the subject 

engines would have a major impact on 

their company’s solvency. An example 

of an unusual circumstance outside a 

manufacturer’s control may be an ‘‘Act 

of God,’’ a fire at the manufacturing 

plant, or the unforeseen shut down of a 

supplier with no alternative available. 

The terms and time frame of the relief 

would depend on the specific 

circumstances of the company and the 

situation involved. As part of its 

application for hardship, a company 

would be required to provide a 

compliance plan detailing when and 

how it would achieve compliance with 

the standards. We consider this relief 

mechanism to be an option of last resort. 

We believe this provision would protect 

PMMs and SVMs from circumstances 

outside their control. We, however, 

would not envision granting hardship 

relief if contract problems with a 

specific company prevent compliance 

for a second time. See the proposed 

regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.245 for 

additional information. 

Small-volume boat builders: We are 

also continuing the unusual 

circumstances hardship provision for 

small-volume boat builders (those with 

less than 500 employees and worldwide 

production of fewer than 100 boats). 

Small-volume boat builders may apply 

for hardship relief if circumstances 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15998 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

128For model year 2015 and 2016 the alternate 

standard would b3 5.5 g/bhp-hr NOX+HC. In all 

cases the alternate standard would be equal to the 

otherwise applicable NOX standard. 

129As is described in this section, freshly 

manufactured locomotives, repowered locomotives, 

refurbished locomotives, and all other 

remanufactured locomotive3s are all ‘‘new 

locomotives’’ in both the existing and proposed 

regulations. 

outside their control cause the failure to 

comply and if the failure to sell the 

subject vessels would have a major 

impact on the company’s solvency. An 

example of an unusual circumstance 

outside a manufacturer’s control may be 

an ‘‘Act of God,’’ a fire at the 

manufacturing plant, or the unforeseen 

shut down of a supplier with no 

alternative available. This relief would 

allow the boat builder to use an 

uncertified engine and is considered a 

mechanism of last resort. The terms and 

time frame of the relief would depend 

on the specific circumstances of the 

company and the situation involved. As 

part of its application for hardship, a 

company would be required to provide 

a compliance plan detailing when and 

how it would achieve compliance with 

the standards. See the proposed 

regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.245 for 

additional information. 

In addition, small-volume boat 

builders generally depend on engine 

manufacturers to supply certified 

engines in time to produce complying 

vessels by the date emission standards 

would begin to apply. We are aware of 

other applications where certified 

engines have been available too late for 

equipment manufacturers to adequately 

accommodate changing engine size or 

performance characteristics. To address 

this concern, we are proposing to allow 

small-volume boat builders to request 

up to one extra year before using 

certified engines if they are not at fault 

and would face serious economic 

hardship without an extension. See the 

proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 

1068.255 for additional information. 

(15) Alternate Tier 4 NOX+HC Standards 

We are proposing new Tier 4 NOX and 

HC standards for locomotives and 

marine engines, and proposing to 

continue our existing emission 

averaging programs. However, the 

existing averaging programs do not 

allow manufacturers to show 

compliance with HC standards using 

averaging. Because we are concerned 

that this could potentially limit the 

benefits of our averaging program as a 

phase-in tool for manufacturers, we are 

proposing an alternate NOX+HC 

standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr that could be 

used as part of the averaging 

program.128 Manufacturers that were 

unable to comply with the Tier 4 HC 

standard would be allowed to certify to 

a NOX+HC FEL, and use emission 

credits to show compliance with the 

alternate standard instead of the 

otherwise applicable NOX and HC 

standards. For example, a manufacturer 

may choose to use banked emission 

credits to gradually phase in its Tier 4 

1200 kW marine engines by producing 

a mix of Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines 

during the early part of 2014. We are 

proposing that NOX+HC credits and 

NOX credits could be averaged together 

without discount. 

(16) Other Issues 

We are also proposing other minor 

changes to the compliance program. For 

example, we are proposing that engine 

manufacturers be required to provide 

installation instructions to vessel 

manufacturers and kit installers to 

ensure that engine cooling systems, 

aftertreatment exhaust emission 

controls, and other emission controls 

are properly installed. Proper 

installation of these systems is critical to 

the emission performance of the 

equipment. Vessel manufacturers and 

kit installers would be required to 

follow the instructions to avoid 

improper installation that could render 

emission controls inoperative. Improper 

installation would subject them to 

penalties equivalent to those for 

tampering with the emission controls. 

We are also clarifying the general 

requirement that no emission controls 

for engines subject to this final rule may 

cause or contribute to an unreasonable 

risk to public health, welfare, or safety, 

especially with respect to noxious or 

toxic emissions that may increase as a 

result of emission-control technologies. 

The proposed regulatory language, 

which addresses the same general 

concept as the existing §§ 92.205 and 

94.205, implements sections 202(a)(4) 

and 206(a)(3) of the Act and clarifies 

that the purpose of this requirement is 

to prevent control technologies that 

would cause unreasonable risks, rather 

than to prevent trace emissions of any 

noxious compounds. This requirement 

prevents the use of emission-control 

technologies that produce pollutants for 

which we have not set emission 

standards, but nevertheless pose a risk 

to the public. 

B. Compliance Issues Specific to 

Locomotives 

(1) Refurbished Locomotives 

Section 213(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act 

directs EPA to establish emission 

standards for ‘‘new locomotives and 

new engines used in locomotives.’’ In 

the previous rulemaking, we defined 

‘‘new locomotive’’ to mean a freshly 

manufactured or remanufactured 

locomotive.129 We defined 

‘‘remanufacture’’ of a locomotive as a 

process in which all of the power 

assemblies of a locomotive engine are 

replaced with freshly manufactured 

(containing no previously used parts) or 

reconditioned power assemblies. In 

cases where all of the power assemblies 

are not replaced at a single time, a 

locomotive is considered to be 

‘‘remanufactured’’ (and therefore 

‘‘new’’) if all of the power assemblies 

from the previously new engine had 

been replaced within a five-year period. 

The proposed regulations clarify the 

definition of ‘‘freshly manufactured 

locomotive’’ when an existing 

locomotive is substantially refurbished 

including the replacement of the old 

engine with a freshly manufactured 

engine. The existing definition in 

§ 92.12 states that freshly manufactured 

locomotives are locomotives that do not 

contain more than 25 percent (by value) 

previously used parts. We allowed 

freshly manufactured locomotives to 

contain up to 25 percent used parts 

because of the current industry practice 

of using various combinations of used 

and unused parts. This 25-percent value 

applies to the dollar value of the parts 

being used rather than the number 

because it more properly weights the 

significance of the various used and 

unused components. We chose 25 

percent as the cutoff because setting a 

very low cutoff point would have 

allowed manufacturers to circumvent 

the more stringent standards for freshly 

manufactured locomotives by including 

a few used parts during the final 

assembly. On the other hand, setting a 

very high cutoff point could have 

required remanufacturers to meet 

standards applicable to freshly 

manufactured locomotives, but such 

standards may not have been feasible 

given the technical limitations of the 

existing chassis. 

We are proposing to add a definition 

of ‘‘refurbish’’ which would mean the 

act of modifying an existing locomotive 

such that the resulting locomotive 

contains less than 50 percent (by value) 

previously used parts, (but more than 25 

percent). We believe that where an 

existing locomotive is improved to this 

degree, it is appropriate to consider it 

separately from locomotives that are 

simply remanufactured in a 

conventional sense. As described in 

section IV.B.(3) we are proposing to set 

the credit proration factor for 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15999 

130 66 FR 5109–5111, January 18, 2001. 

refurbished switch locomotives equal to 

the proration factor for 20-year old 

switchers (0.60). 

We are requesting comment on 

whether refurbished locomotives should 

be required to meet more stringent 

standards than locomotives that are 

simply remanufactured. For example, 

would it be feasible and cost-effective to 

require refurbished switch locomotives 

to meet latest applicable emission 

standards (i.e., the highest tier of 

standards that is applicable to freshly 

manufactured switch locomotives at the 

time of the remanufacture) rather than 

the old standards? If not, should they be 

required to at least meet the Tier 1 or 

Tier 2 standards? 

We recognize that the issues are 

somewhat different for refurbished linehaul locomotives because of different 

design constraints that are not present 

with switchers. If we required 

refurbished line-haul locomotives to 

meet very stringent standards, should 

we allow railroads to refurbish a limited 

number of line-haul locomotives to less 

stringent standards? For example, if we 

required refurbished line-haul 

locomotives to meet the Tier 3 

standards, should we allow railroads to 

refurbish up to 10 line-haul locomotives 

per year to the Tier 2 standards. 

(2) Averaging, Banking and Trading 

We are proposing to continue the 

existing averaging banking and trading 

provisions for locomotives. In general, 

we will continue the historical practice 

of capping family emission limits (FELs) 

at the level of the previously applicable 

standard. However, we are requesting 

comment on whether we should set 

lower caps for Tier 4 locomotives 

similar to what was done for highway 

engines.130 We recognize that it would 

be appropriate to allow the use of 

emission credits to smooth the 

transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4, and this 

requires the FELs to be set at the level 

of the Tier 3 standards. 

In order to ensure that the ABT 

program is not used to delay the 

implementation of the Tier 4 

technology, we are also proposing to 

carry over an averaging restriction that 

was adopted for Tier 2 locomotives in 

the previous locomotive rulemaking. We 

would restrict to number of Tier 4 

locomotives that could be certified 

using credits to no more than 50 percent 

of a manufacturer’s annual production. 

As was true for the earlier restriction, 

this would be intended to ensure that 

progress is made toward compliance 

with the advanced technology expected 

to be needed to meet the Tier 4 

standards. This would encourage 

manufacturers to make every effort 

toward meeting the Tier 4 standards, 

while allowing some use of banked 

credits to provide needed lead time in 

implementing the Tier 4 standards by 

2015, allowing them to appropriately 

focus research and development funds. 

We request comment on the need for 

this or other restriction on the 

application of credits to Tier 4 

locomotives. 

We are proposing to prohibit the 

carryover of PM credits generated from 

Tier 0 or Tier 1 locomotives under part 

92. The Tier 0 and Tier 1 PM standards 

under part 92 were set above the average 

baseline level to act as caps on PM 

emissions rather than technologyforcing standards. Thus, credits 

generated against these standards can be 

considered to be windfall credits. We 

believe that allowing the carryover of 

such PM credits would not be 

appropriate. We would allow credits 

generated from Tier 2 locomotives to be 

used under part 1033. We request 

comment on this prohibition as well as 

an alternative approach in which part 

92 PM credits are discounted 

significantly rather than prohibited 

completely. 

We are also proposing to update the 

proration factors for credits generated or 

used by remanufactured locomotives. 

The updated proration factors better 

reflect the difference in service time for 

line-haul and switch locomotives. The 

ABT program is based on credit 

calculations that assume as a default 

that a locomotive will remain at a single 

FEL for its full service life (from the 

point it is originally manufactured until 

it is scrapped). However, when we 

established the existing standards, we 

recognized that technology will 

continue to evolve and that locomotive 

owners may wish to upgrade their 

locomotives to cleaner technology and 

certify the locomotive to a lower FEL at 

a subsequent remanufacture. We 

established proration factors based on 

the age of the locomotive to make 

calculated credits for remanufactured 

locomotives consistent with credits for 

freshly manufactured locomotive in 

terms of lifetime emissions. The 

proposed proration factors are shown in 

§ 1033.705 of the proposed regulations. 

These would replace the existing 

proration factors of § 92.305. For 

example, using the proposed proration 

factors, a 15 year old line-haul 

locomotive certified to a new FEL that 

was 1.00 g/bhp-hr below the applicable 

standard would generate the same 

amount of credit as a freshly 

manufactured locomotive that was 

certified to an FEL that was 0.43 g/bhphr below the applicable standard 

because the proration factor would be 

0.43. For comparison, under the existing 

regulations, the proration factor would 

be 0.50. See section IV.B.(3) for 

additional discussion of proration factor 

issues related to refurbished switchers. 

We are also requesting comment on 

how to assign emission credits. Under 

the current regulations, credits can be 

held by the manufacturer, railroad, or 

other entities. Since remanufacturing is 

frequently a collaborative process 

between the railroad and either a 

manufacturer or other remanufacturer, 

there can be multiple entities that are 

considered to be remanufacturers, and 

thus allowed to hold the certificate for 

the remanufactured locomotive. The 

regulations presume that credits are 

held by the certificate holder, but they 

can be transferred to the railroad at the 

point of sale or the point of 

remanufacture. We are requesting 

comment on whether it would be more 

appropriate to require that credits be 

transferred to the railroads for some or 

all cases. Automatically transferring 

credits to the railroad at the time of 

remanufacture would be a way of 

applying the standards on a fleetaverage basis. Would this be a better 

approach for ensuring that the industry 

applies low emission technology in the 

most equitable and cost effective 

manner? Would it reduce the potential 

for market disruptions? Would it have 

any other beneficial or adverse 

consequences not discussed here? 

Finally, we are requesting comment 

on how to treat credits generated and 

used by Tier 3 and later locomotives. 

Under the current part 92 ABT program, 

credits are segregated based on the cycle 

over which they are generated but not 

by how the locomotive is intended to be 

used (switch, line-haul, passenger, etc.). 

Line-haul locomotives can generate 

credits for use by switch locomotives, 

and vice versa, because both 

locomotives are subject to the same 

standards. However, for the Tier 3 and 

Tier 4 programs, switch and line-haul 

locomotives would be subject to 

different standards with emissions 

generally measured only for one test 

cycle. We are proposing to allow credits 

generated by Tier 3 or later switch 

locomotives over the switch cycle to be 

used by line-haul locomotives to show 

compliance with line-haul cycle 

standards. We are requesting comment 

on (but not proposing) allowing such 

cross-cycle use of line-haul credits (or 

switch credits generated by line-haul 

locomotives) by Tier 3 or later switch 

locomotives. 

To make this approach work, we are 

also proposing a special calculation 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16000 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

method where the credit using 

locomotive is subject to standards over 

only one duty cycle while the credit 

generating locomotive is subject to 

standards over both duty cycles (and 

can thus generate credits over both 

cycles). In such cases, we would require 

the use of credits under both cycles. For 

example, for a Tier 4 line-haul engine 

family needing 1.0 megagrams of NOX

credits to comply with the line-haul 

emission standard, the manufacturer 

would have to use 1.0 megagrams of 

line-haul NOX credits and 1.0 

megagrams of switch NOX credits if the 

line-haul credits were generated by a 

locomotive subject to standards over 

both cycles. 

Commenters supporting cross-cycle 

credit averaging should also address 

uncertainty due to cycle differences and 

the different ways in which switch and 

line-haul locomotives are likely to be 

used. For example, the two cycles are 

very different and reflect average duty 

cycles for the two major types of 

operation. Moreover, because switch 

locomotive generally spend more time 

in low-power operation than line-haul 

locomotives, they tend to last much 

longer in terms of years. This means that 

the full benefits of emission reductions 

from switch locomotives will likely 

occur further into the future than will 

the benefits of emission reductions from 

line-haul locomotives. Should such 

credits be adjusted to account for this 

difference? If so, how? Are there other 

factors that would warrant applying 

some adjustment to the credits to make 

them more equivalent to one another? 

(3) Switch Credit Calculation 

We are proposing to correct the 

existing ABT program to more 

appropriately give credits to railroads 

for upgrading old switchers to use clean 

engines, rather than to continue using 

the old high emission engines 

indefinitely. As with the existing 

program, credits would be calculated 

from the difference between the 

emissions of the old switcher and the 

emissions of the new replacement 

switcher, adjusted to account for the 

projected time the old switcher would 

have otherwise remained in service. We 

are also requesting comment on whether 

other changes need to be made to the 

switch credit calculation. 

The proposed correction would affect 

the proration factor that is used in the 

credit calculation to account for the 

locomotive’s emissions projected for the 

remainder of its service life, relative to 

a freshly manufactured locomotive. 

More specifically, the correction we are 

proposing would create a floor for the 

credit proration factor for refurbished 

switch locomotives equal to the 

proration factor for 20 year old 

switchers (0.60). For example, under the 

proposed program, refurbishing a 35 

year old switch locomotive to an FEL 

1.0 g/bhp-hr below the Tier 0 standard 

would generate the same amount of 

credit as a conventional remanufacture 

of a 20 year old switch locomotive to an 

FEL 1.0 g/bhp-hr below the Tier 0 

standard. This is because we believe 

that such refurbished switch 

locomotives will almost certainly 

operate as long as a 20 year old 

locomotive that was remanufactured at 

the same time. Such credits can be 

generated under the existing program, 

but not to the full degree that they 

should be. That original program was 

designed to address line-haul 

locomotives, and no special 

consideration was made for switchers or 

for substantially refurbishing the 

locomotive. Most significantly, the 

existing regulations assume that any 

locomotive 32 years old or older would 

only be remanufactured one additional 

time (i.e., only have one remaining 

useful life). This is true without regard 

to how many additional improvements 

are made to the locomotive to extend its 

service life. Based on this assumption, 

any credits generated by such a 

locomotive are discounted by 86 percent 

relative to credits generated or used by 

a freshly manufactured locomotive. 

While this kind of discount 

appropriately reflected the differences 

in future emissions for line-haul 

locomotives, it greatly underestimates 

the emission reduction achieved by 

refurbishing switch locomotives. 

The existing and proposed credit 

programs allow for remanufacturers to 

generate emission credits by 

refurbishing an existing old switch 

locomotive so that it will use engines 

meeting the standards for freshly 

manufactured locomotives. However, 

they do not allow for any credits to be 

generated by simultaneously creating a 

freshly manufactured locomotive and 

scrapping an existing old switch 

locomotive, even though the emissions 

impact of the two scenarios may be 

identical. We request comment on 

whether it is appropriate to maintain 

this distinction. Commenters supporting 

allowing credits to be generated by 

scrapping old locomotives should 

address how to ensure that allowing it 

would not result in windfall credits 

being generated from old locomotives 

that would have been scrapped anyway. 

(4) Phase-in and Reasonable Cost Limit 

We are proposing that the new Tier 0 

and 1 emission standards become 

applicable on January 1, 2010. We are 

also proposing a requirement for 2008 

and 2009 when a remanufacturing 

system is certified to these new 

standards. If such system is available 

before 2010 for a given locomotive at a 

reasonable cost, remanufacturers of 

those locomotives may no longer 

remanufacture them to the previously 

applicable standards. They must instead 

comply with the new Tier 0 or 1 

emission standards. Similarly, we are 

proposing a requirement to use certified 

Tier 2 systems for 2008 through 2012 

when a remanufacturing system is 

certified to the new Tier 2 standards. 

We are requesting comment on how best 

to define reasonable cost. 

As part of this phase-in requirement, 

we would allow owners/operators a 90- 

day grace period in which they could 

remanufacture their locomotives to the 

previously applicable standards. This 

would allow them to use up inventory 

of older parts. It would also allow 

sufficient time to find out about the 

availability of kits and to make 

appropriate plans for compliance. 

We are also requesting comment on 

whether this requirement will cause any 

disadvantage to non-OEM 

remanufacturers who may be unable to 

develop remanufacture systems in time. 

(5) Recertification Without Testing 

Once manufacturers have certified an 

engine family, we have historically 

allowed them to obtain certificates for 

subsequent model years using the same 

test data if the engines remain 

unchanged from the previous model 

year. We refer to this type of 

certification as ‘‘carryover.’’ We are 

proposing to continue this allowance. 

We are also requesting comment on 

extending this allowance to owner/ 

operators. Specifically, we request 

comment on adding the following 

paragraph to the end of the proposed 

§ 1033.240: 

An owner/operator remanufacturing its 

locomotives to be identical to its previously 

certified configuration may certify by design 

without new emission test data. To do this, 

submit the application for certification 

described in § 1033.205, but instead of 

including test data, include a description of 

how you will ensure that your locomotives 

will be identical in all material respects to 

their previously certified condition. You 

have all of the liabilities and responsibilities 

of the certificate holder for locomotives you 

certify under this paragraph. 

Several railroads have expressed 

concern that once they purchase a 

compliant locomotive, they are at the 

mercy of the original manufacturer at 

the time of remanufacture if there are no 

other certified kits available for that 

model. The regulatory provision shown 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16001 

above would make it somewhat simpler 

for a railroad to obtain the certificate 

because it would eliminate the need to 

certification testing. 

(6) Railroad Testing 

Section 92.1003 requires Class I 

freight railroads to annually test a small 

sample of their locomotives. We are 

proposing to adopt the same 

requirements in § 1033.810. We are 

requesting comments on whether this 

program should be changed. In 

particular, we request suggestions to 

better specify how a railroad selects 

which locomotives to test, which has 

been a source of some confusion in 

recent years. Commenters suggesting 

changes should also address when such 

changes should take effect. 

(7) Test Conditions and Corrections 

In our previous rule, we established 

test conditions that are representative of 

in-use conditions. Specifically, we 

required that locomotives comply with 

emission standards when tested at 

temperatures from 45 °F to 105 °F and 

at both sea level and altitude conditions 

up to about 4,000 feet above sea level. 

One of the reasons we established such 

a broad range was to allow outdoor 

testing of locomotives. While we only 

required that locomotives comply with 

emission standards when tested at 

altitudes up to 4,000 feet for purposes 

of certification and in-use liability, we 

also required manufacturers to submit 

evidence with their certification 

applications, in the form of an 

engineering analysis, that shows that 

their locomotives were designed to 

comply with emission standards at 

altitudes up to 7,000 feet. We included 

correction factors that are used to 

account for the effects of ambient 

temperature and humidity on NOX

emission rates. 

We are proposing to change the lower 

limit for testing to 60 °F and eliminate 

the correction for the effects of ambient 

temperature. In implementing the 

current regulations, we have found that 

the broad temperature range with 

correction, which was established to 

make testing more practical, was not 

workable. Given the uncertainty with 

the existing correction, manufacturers 

have generally tried to test in the 

narrower range being proposed today. 

However, under the proposed 

regulations, we would allow 

manufacturers to test at lower 

temperatures, but would require them to 

develop correction factors specific to 

their locomotive designs. We would 

continue the other existing test 

condition provisions in the proposed 

regulations. 

(8) Duty Cycles 

We are not proposing any changes to 

the weighting factors for the locomotive 

duty cycles. However, we are requesting 

comment on whether such changes 

would be appropriate in light of the 

proposed idle reduction requirements. 

The existing regulations (§ 92.132(a)(4)) 

specifies an alternate calculation for 

locomotive equipped with idle 

shutdown features. Specifically, the 

regulatory language states: 

For locomotives equipped with features 

that shut the engine off after prolonged 

periods of idle, the measured mass emission 

rate Mi1 (and Mi1a as applicable) shall be 

multiplied by a factor equal to one minus the 

estimated fraction reduction in idling time 

that will result in use from the shutdown 

feature. Application of this adjustment is 

subject to the Administrator’s approval. 

This provision allows a manufacturer 

to appropriately account for the 

inclusion of idle reduction features as 

part of its emission control system. 

There are three primary reasons why we 

are not proposing to change the 

calculation procedures with respect to 

the proposed idle requirements. First, 

different shutdown systems will achieve 

different levels of idle reduction in use. 

Thus, no single adjustment to the cycle 

would appropriately reflect the range of 

reductions that will be achieved. 

Second, the existing calculation 

provides an incentive for manufacturers 

to design shutdown systems that will 

achieve in the greatest degree of idle 

reduction that is practical. Finally, our 

feasibility analysis is based in part on 

the emission reductions achievable 

relative to the existing standards. Since 

some manufacturers already rely on the 

calculated emission reductions from 

shutdown features incorporated into 

many of their locomotive designs, our 

feasibility is based in part on allowing 

such calculations. 

While we are proposing to continue 

this approach, we are requesting 

comment on whether we should be 

more specific in our regulations about 

what level of adjustment is appropriate. 

For example, should we specify that 

idle emission rates for locomotives 

meeting our proposed minimum 

shutdown requirements in § 1033.115 be 

reduced by 20 percent, unless the 

manufacturer demonstrates that greater 

idle reduction will be achieved? 

We also recognize that the potential 

exists for locomotives to include 

additional power notches, or even 

continuously variable throttles and that 

the standard FTP sequence for such 

locomotives would result in an 

emissions measurement that does not 

accurately reflect their in-use emissions 

performance. Moreover, some 

locomotives may not have all of the 

specified notches, making it impossible 

to test them over the full test. Under the 

existing regulations, we handle such 

locomotives under our discretion to 

allow alternate calculations (40 CFR 

92.132(e)). We are requesting comment 

on whether we need detailed 

regulations to specify duty cycles for 

such locomotives. In general, for 

locomotives missing notches, we believe 

the existing duty cycle weighting factors 

should be reweighted without the 

missing notches. For locomotives 

without notches or more than 8 power 

notches, commenters should consider 

the following information provided to 

us by manufacturers for the previous 

rulemaking that shows that typical 

notch power levels expressed as a 

percentage of the rated power of the 

engine as shown in Table IV–below. 

TABLE IV–1.—TYPICAL LOCOMOTIVE NOTCH POWER LEVELS

Notch 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Percent of Rated Power ................................................................ 4.5 11.5 23.5 35.0 48.5 64.0 85.0 100.0 

(9) Use of Engines Certified Under 40 

CFR Parts 89 and 1039 

Section 92.907 currently allows the 

use of a limited number of nonroad 

engines in locomotive applications 

without certifying under the locomotive 

program. We placed limits on the 

number of nonroad engines that can be 

used for four primary reasons: 

• The locomotive program is 

uniquely tailored to the railroad 

industry to ensure emission reductions 

for actual locomotive operation over 30–

60 year service lives. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16002 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

• At sufficiently high sales levels, the 

per locomotive cost of certifying under 

part 92 become less significant. 

• It is somewhat inequitable to allow 

nonroad engine manufacturers the 

option of certifying the engines in 

whichever program they believe to be 

more advantageous to them, considering 

factors such as compliance testing 

requirements. 

• States and localities have much less 

ability to regulate locomotives than 

other engine types, and thus EPA has an 

obligation to monitor locomotive 

performance more closely. 

We believe that these reasons remain 

valid and are proposing to continue this 

type of allowance. However, we are 

proposing some changes to these 

procedures. In general, manufacturers 

have not taken advantage of these 

existing provisions. In some cases, this 

was because the manufacturer wanted to 

produce more locomotives than allowed 

under the exemption. However, in most 

cases, it was because the customer 

wanted a full locomotive certification 

with the longer useful life and 

additional compliance assurances. We 

are proposing new separate approaches 

for the long term (§ 1033.625) and the 

short term (§ 1033.150), each of which 

addresses at least one of these issues. 

For the long term, we are proposing 

to replace the existing allowance to rely 

on part 89 certificates with a designcertification program that would make 

the locomotives subject to the 

locomotive standards in-use, but not 

require new testing to demonstrate 

compliance at certification. Specifically, 

this program would allow switch 

manufacturers using nonroad engines to 

introduce up to 15 locomotives of a new 

model prior to completing the 

traditional certification requirements. 

While the manufacturer would be able 

to certify without new testing, the 

locomotives have locomotive 

certificates. Thus, purchasers would 

have the compliance assurances that 

they seem to desire. 

The short term program is more 

flexible and would not require that the 

locomotives comply with the switch 

cycle standards, and instead the engines 

would be subject to the part 1039 

standards. The manufacturer would be 

required to use good engineering 

judgment to ensure that the engines’

emission controls will function properly 

when installed in a locomotive. Given 

the relative levels of the part 1039 

standards and those being proposed in 

1033, we do believe there is little 

environmental risk with this short-term 

allowance, and thus propose to not have 

any limits of the sales of such 

locomotives. Nevertheless, we are 

proposing that this allowance be limited 

to model years through 2017. This will 

provide sufficient time to develop these 

new switchers. We are not proposing 

that these locomotives would be exempt 

from the part 1033 locomotive standards 

when remanufactured, unless the 

remanufacturing of the locomotive took 

place prior to 2018 and involved 

replacement of the engines with 

certified new nonroad engines. 

Otherwise, the remanufactured 

locomotive would be required to be 

covered by a part 1033 remanufacturing 

certificate. 

We are also requesting comment on 

whether specific regulatory language is 

needed to describe how to test 

locomotives that have multiple 

propulsion engines, and when it is 

appropriate to allow single engine 

testing for certification. 

(10) Auxiliary Emission Control Devices 

Triggered by GPS Data 

Some manufacturers have developed 

software which can use latitude and 

longitude to change engine operating 

characteristics including emissions. 

Such software fits our definition of an 

auxiliary emission control device 

(AECD). If for example, the software 

were to increase emissions when the 

locomotive was operated in Mexico; this 

would cause the locomotive to fail 

emission standards when in Mexico. 

Moreover, the emissions from such a 

locomotive would likely be harmful to 

both Mexican and U.S. citizens due to 

emissions transport. AECDs (except 

those approved during certification) 

which cause emission exceedences 

when a locomotive crosses the U.S. 

border into a foreign country are 

considered defeat devices and are not 

permitted. When a locomotive is 

certified, it should comply with U.S. 

standards and requirements during all 

operation. It does not matter where the 

locomotive goes after it is introduced 

into commerce. In addition, since 

emission labels have to contain an 

unconditional statement of compliance, 

non-compliant operation in any area, 

including a foreign country, would 

render the label language false, and this 

is not allowed. 

(11) Mexican and Canadian 

Locomotives 

Under the existing regulations, 

Mexican and Canadian locomotives are 

subject to the same requirements as U.S. 

locomotives if they operate extensively 

within the U.S. The regulations 40 CFR 

92.804(e) states: 

Locomotives that are operated primarily 

outside of the United States, and that enter 

the United States temporarily from Canada or 

Mexico are exempt from the requirements 

and prohibitions of this part without 

application, provided that the operation 

within the United States is not extensive and 

is incidental to their primary operation. 

We are proposing to change this 

exemption to make it subject to our 

prior approval, since we have found that 

the current language has caused some 

confusion. When we created this 

exemption, it was our understanding 

that Mexican and Canadian locomotives 

rarely operated in the U.S. and the 

operation that did occur was limited to 

within a short distance of the border. 

We are now aware that there are many 

Canadian locomotives that do operate 

extensively within the U.S. and 

relatively few that would meet the 

conditions of the exemption. We have 

also learned that some Mexican 

locomotives may be operating more 

extensively in the United States. Thus, 

it is appropriate to make this exemption 

subject to our prior approval. To obtain 

this exemption, a railroad would be 

required to submit a detailed plan for 

our review prior to using uncertified 

locomotives in the U.S. We would grant 

an exemption for locomotives that we 

determine will not be used extensively 

in the U.S. and that such operation 

would be incidental to their primary 

operation. Mexican and Canadian 

locomotives that do not have such an 

exemption and do not otherwise meet 

EPA regulations may not enter the 

United States. 

(12) Temporary In-Use Compliance 

Margins and Assigned Deterioration 

Factors 

The Tier 4 standards would be 

challenging for manufacturers to 

achieve, and would require 

manufacturers to develop and adapt 

new technologies. Not only would 

manufacturers be responsible for 

ensuring that these technologies would 

allow engines to meet the standards at 

the time of certification, they would also 

have to ensure that these technologies 

continue to be highly effective in a wide 

range of in-use environments so that 

their engines would comply in use 

when tested by EPA. However, in the 

early years of a program that introduces 

new technology, there are risks of in-use 

compliance problems that may not 

appear in the certification process or 

during developmental testing. Thus, we 

believe that for a limited number of 

model years after new standards take 

effect it is appropriate to adjust the 

compliance levels for assessing in-use 

compliance for diesel engines equipped 

with aftertreatment. This would provide 

assurance to the manufacturers that they 

would not face recall if they exceed 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16003 

131 70 FR 40458, July 13, 2005. 

standards by a small amount during this 

transition to clean technologies. This 

approach is very similar to that taken in 

the highway heavy-duty rule (66 FR 

5113–5114) and general nonroad rule 

(69 FR 38957), both of which involve 

similar approaches to introducing the 

new technologies. 

Table IV–2 shows the in-use 

adjustments that we propose to apply. 

These adjustments would be added to 

the appropriate standards or FELs in 

determining the in-use compliance level 

for a given in-use hours accumulation. 

Our intent is that these add-on levels be 

available only for highly-effective 

advanced technologies such as 

particulate traps and SCR. Note that 

these in-use add-on levels apply only to 

engines certified through the first few 

model years of the new standards. 

During the certification demonstration, 

manufacturers would still be required to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

unadjusted Tier 4 certification standards 

using deteriorated emission rates. 

Therefore, the manufacturer would not 

be able to use these in-use standards as 

the design targets for the engine. They 

would need to project that engines 

would meet the standards in-use 

without adjustment. The in-use 

adjustments would merely provide 

some assurance that they would not be 

forced to recall engines because of some 

small miscalculation of the expected 

deterioration rates. 

To put these levels in context, the 

difference between the NOX standard 

with and without the end of life add-on 

is equivalent to the end of life catalyst 

efficiency being about 20 percent lower 

than expected. Our feasibility analysis 

projects that the SCR catalyst would 

need to be approximately 80 percent 

efficient over the locomotive duty cycle 

at the end of the locomotive’s useful life 

to comply with the 1.3 g/bhp-hr 

standard. However, if this efficiency 

dropped to 60 percent, the cycleweighted emissions would essentially 

double, increasing by up to 1.3 g/bhphr. 

TABLE IV–2.—PROPOSED IN-USE ADD-ONS

[g/bhp-hr] 

For useful life fractions NOX

(2017–2019) 

PM 

(2015–2017) 

<50% UL .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.7 0.01 

50%–75% UL ........................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 

>75% UL .................................................................................................................................................................. 1.3 

C. Compliance Issues Specific to Marine 

Engines 

(1) Useful Life 

We specify in 40 CFR 94.9 minimum 

values for the useful life compliance 

period. We require manufacturers to 

specify longer useful lives for engines 

that are designed to last longer than 

these minimum values. We also allow 

manufacturers to ask for shorter useful 

lives where they can demonstrate that 

the engines will rarely exceed the 

requested value in use. Some 

manufacturers have proposed that the 

useful life scheme in our regulation be 

modified to more closely reflect the 

design lives of current marine engines 

and the fact that design life inherently 

varies with engine cylinder size and 

power density. Our existing regulations 

do account for this variation by 

specifying nominal minimum useful life 

values which most engines are certified 

to. Manufacturers are required to certify 

to longer useful lives if their engines are 

designed to last significantly longer than 

this minimum. The regulations also 

include provisions for a manufacturer to 

request a shorter useful life. This was 

recently amended to include a more 

prescriptive basis for manufacturers to 

demonstrate that a shorter useful life is 

more appropriate.131 Specifically, our 

regulations used to require that the 

demonstration include data from in-use 

engines. Manufacturers were concerned 

that they generally do not (and cannot) 

have the data from in-use engines that 

is needed to justify an alternate useful 

life prior to obtaining certification and 

putting engines into service. The 

amended regulations allow 

manufacturers to use information 

equivalent to in-use data, such as data 

from research engines or similar engine 

models that are already in production. 

Additionally, the demonstration 

currently required must include 

recommended overhaul intervals, any 

mechanical warranties offered for the 

engine or its components, and any 

relevant customer design specifications. 

Given the above amendments, we do not 

feel that a sweeping change to our 

useful life scheme is warranted at this 

time. We would be willing to consider 

modifying our scheme in the future 

should manufacturers provide data for 

characteristics used to design engine 

overhaul intervals (e.g., compression 

loss, oil consumption increase, engine 

component wear, etc.) in specific 

cylinder size and power density 

categories. 

(2) Replacement Engines 

Under the provisions of our current 

marine diesel engine program, when an 

engine on an existing vessel is replaced 

with a new engine, that new engine 

must be certified to the standards in 

existence when the vessel is repowered. 

These repower requirements apply to 

both propulsion and auxiliary engines. 

We are proposing to apply this approach 

under the new regulations rather than 

the provisions of § 1068.240. 

We provided an exemption in 40 CFR 

94.1103(b)(3) which allows a vessel 

owner to replace an existing engine with 

a new uncertified engine or a new 

engine certified to an earlier standard 

engine in certain cases. This is only 

allowed, however, if it can be 

demonstrated that no new engine that is 

certified to the emission limits in effect 

at that time is produced by any 

manufacturer with the appropriate 

physical or performance characteristics 

needed to repower the vessel. In other 

words, if a new certified engine cannot 

be used, an engine manufacturer may 

produce a new replacement engine that 

does not meet all of the requirements in 

effect at that time. For example, if a 

vessel has twin Tier 1 propulsion 

engines and it becomes necessary to 

replace one of them after the Tier 3 

standards go into effect, the vessel 

owner can request approval for an 

engine manufacture to produce a new 

Tier 1 engine if it can be demonstrated 

that the vessel would not function 

properly if the engines are not 

identically matched. 

There are certain conditions for this 

exemption. The replacement engine 

must meet standards at least as stringent 

as those of the original engine. So, for 

example, if the original engine is a preTier 1 engine, then the replacement 

engine need not meet any emission 

limits. If the old engine was a Tier 1 

engine, the new engine must meet at 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16004 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

132 Gas turbine engines are internal combustion 

engines that can operate using diesel fuel, 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. 

least the Tier 1 limits. As described in 

this section, the new engine does not 

necessarily need to meet stricter limits 

that may otherwise apply when the 

replacement occurs. Also as a condition 

for the exemption, the engine 

manufacturer must take possession of 

the original engine or make sure it is 

destroyed. In addition, the replacement 

engine must be clearly labeled to show 

that it does not comply with the 

standards and that sale or installation of 

the engine for any purpose other than as 

a replacement engine is a violation of 

federal law and subject to civil penalty. 

Our regulations specify the information 

that must be on the label. In this 

proposal, we are adding a provision to 

cover the case where the engine meets 

a previous tier of standards. 

As described above, this provision 

requires EPA to make the determination 

that no certified engine would meet the 

required physical or performance needs 

of the vessel. However, we recently 

revised this provision to allow the 

engine manufacturer to make this 

determination in cases of catastrophic 

engine failure. In these cases, the vessel 

is not usable until a replacement engine 

is found and installed. The engine 

manufacturers and vessel owners were 

concerned that our review would take a 

considerable amount of time. In 

addition, they were also concerned that 

reviewing all potential replacement 

engines for suitability would also take a 

lot of time. Note that in cases where a 

vessel owner simply wants to replace an 

engine with a new version of the same 

engine as part of a vessel overhaul for 

example, it would still be necessary to 

obtain our approval. 

In catastrophic failure situations, our 

regulations now allow an engine 

manufacturer to determine that no 

compliant engine can be used for a 

replacement engine, provided that 

certain conditions are met. First, the 

manufacturer must determine that no 

certified engine is available, either from 

its own product lineup or that of the 

manufacturer of the original engine (if 

different). Second, the engine 

manufacturer must document the 

reasons why an engine of a newer tier 

is not usable, and this report must be 

made available to us upon request. 

Finally, no other significant 

modifications to the vessel can be made 

as part of the process of replacing the 

engine, or for a period of 6 months 

thereafter. This is to avoid the situation 

where an engine is replaced prior to a 

vessel modification that would 

otherwise result in the vessel becoming 

‘‘new’’ and its engines becoming subject 

to the new engine standards. In 

addition, the replacement of important 

navigation systems at the same time 

may actually allow the use of a newer 

tier engine. 

We are returning to this provision to 

add an additional requirement. 

Specifically, the determination (either 

by the engine manufacturer in the case 

of a catastrophic failure or by us in all 

other cases) must show that no engine 

of the current or any previous tier 

would meet the physical or performance 

requirements of the engine. In other 

words, after the Tier 4 standards go into 

effect, it must be demonstrated that no 

other Tier 4, or Tier 3, Tier 2, or Tier 

1 engines would work. Similarly, when 

the Tier 3 standards are in effect it must 

be demonstrated that no other Tier 3, or 

Tier 2 or Tier 1 engine would work. If 

there are engines from two or more 

previous tiers of standards that would 

meet the performance requirements, 

then the requirement would be to use 

the engine from the cleanest tier of 

standards. 

(3) Personal Use Exemption 

The existing control program provides 

for exemptions from the standards, 

including testing, manufacturer-owned 

engines, display engines, competition 

engines, national security, and export. 

We also provide an engine dresser 

exemption that applies to marine diesel 

engines that are produced by marinizing 

a certified highway, nonroad, or 

locomotive engine without changing it 

in any way that may affect the emissions 

characteristics of the engine. 

In addition to these existing 

exemptions we are also proposing a new 

provision that would exempt an engine 

installed on a vessel manufactured by a 

person for his or her own use (see 40 

CFR 1042.630). This proposal is 

intended to address the hobbyists and 

fishermen who make their own vessel 

(from a personal design, for example, or 

to replicate a vintage vessel) and who 

would otherwise be considered to be a 

manufacturer subject to the full set of 

emission standards by introducing a 

vessel into commerce. The exemption is 

intended to allow such a person to 

install a rebuilt engine, an engine that 

was used in another vessel owned by 

the person building the new vessel, or 

a reconditioned vintage engine (to add 

greater authenticity to a vintage vessel). 

The exemption is not intended to allow 

such a person to order a new 

uncontrolled engine from an engine 

manufacturer. We expect this exemption 

to involve a very small number of 

vessels, so the environmental impact of 

this proposed exemption would be 

negligible. 

Because the exemption is intended for 

hobbyists and fishermen, we are setting 

additional requirements for it. First, the 

vessel may not be used for general 

commercial purposes. The one 

exception to this is that the exemption 

allows a fisherman to use the vessel for 

his or her own commercial fishing. 

Second, the exemption would be 

limited to one such vessel over a tenyear period and would not allow 

exempt engines to be sold for at least 

five years. We believe these restrictions 

would not be unreasonable for a true 

hobby builder or comparable fisherman. 

Moreover, we would require that the 

vessel generally be built from 

unassembled components, rather than 

simply completing assembly of a vessel 

that is otherwise similar to one that will 

be certified to meet emission standards. 

The person also must be building the 

vessel him- or herself, and not simply 

ordering parts for someone else to 

assemble. Finally, the vessel must be a 

vessel that is not classed or subject to 

Coast Guard inspections or surveys. 

We are requesting comment on all 

aspects of this proposed exemption. We 

also request comment on whether this 

application of the exemption should be 

limited to fishing vessels under a certain 

length (e.g., 36 feet), to ensure that it is 

limited to small operators, and/or 

whether it should be limited to vessels 

that are engaged only in seasonal fishing 

and not used year-round. 

(4) Gas Turbine Engines 

While gas turbine engines 132 are used 

extensively in naval ships, they are not 

used very often in commercial ships. 

Because of this and because we do not 

currently have sufficient information, 

we are not proposing to regulate marine 

gas turbines in this rulemaking. 

Nevertheless, we believe that gas 

turbines could likely meet the proposed 

standards (or similar standards) since 

they generally have lower emissions 

than diesel engines and will reconsider 

gas turbines in a future rulemaking. We 

are requesting that commenters familiar 

with gas turbines provide to us any 

emissions information that is available. 

We would also welcome comments on 

whether it would be appropriate to 

regulate turbines and diesels together. 

Commenters supporting the regulation 

of turbines should also address whether 

any special provisions would be needed 

for the testing and certification of 

turbines. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16005 

133See Top 25 Merchant Fleets of the World—

Major world fleets by vessel type, listed by Flag of 

Registry and Country of Ownership. U.S. ranks 13th 

by flag, but 5th by ownership. (Updated 11/21/06) 

accessed at http://www.marad.dot.gov/ 

MARAD_statistics/index.html#Fleet%20Statistics 

and World Merchant Fleet 2001–2005 (July 2006) 

accessed at http://www.marad.dot.gov/ 

MARAD_statistics/2005%20STATISTICS/ 

World%20Merchant%20Fleet%202005.pdf. 

(5) Residual Fuel Engines 

Our Category 1 and Category 2 marine 

diesel engine standards, both the 

existing emission limits (Tiers 1 and 2) 

and the proposed emission limits (Tiers 

3 and 4) apply to all newly built marine 

diesel engines regardless of the fuel they 

are designed to use. In the vast majority 

of cases, this fuel would be distillate 

diesel fuel similar to diesel fuel used in 

highway or land-based nonroad 

applications. However, there are a small 

number of Category 1 and Category 2 

auxiliary engines that are designed to 

use residual fuel. Residual fuel is a byproduct of distilling crude oil to 

produce lighter petroleum products 

such as gasoline, DM-grade diesel fuel 

(also called ‘‘distillate diesel’’ which is 

used in on-highway, land-based 

nonoroad, and marine diesel engines), 

and kerosene. Residual fuel possesses a 

high viscosity and density, which makes 

it harder to handle (usage requires 

special equipment such as heaters, 

centrifuges, and purifiers). It typically 

has a high ash, nitrogen, and sulfur 

content compared to distillate diesel 

fuels. It is not produced to a set of 

narrow specifications, and so fuel 

parameters can be highly variable. All of 

these characteristics of residual fuel 

make it difficult to handle, and it is 

typically used only in Category 3 

engines on ocean-going vessels or in 

very large (above 30 l/cylinder) 

generators used in land-based power 

plants. Residual fuel is traditionally not 

used in Category 1 or Category 2 

propulsion engines because of the fuel 

handling equipment required onboard 

and because it can affect engine 

responsiveness. However, it may be 

used in Category 1 or Category 2 

auxiliary engines used on ocean-going 

vessels, to simplify the fuel 

requirements for the vessel (both 

propulsion and auxiliary engines would 

operate on the same fuel). 

In contrast to the federal program, the 

engine testing and certification 

provision in Annex VI allow 

manufacturers to test engines on 

distillate fuel even if they are intended 

to operate on residual fuel. This 

approach was adopted because it was 

thought that the use of residual fuel 

would not affect NOX, and the Annex VI 

standards are NOX only. At the same 

time, however, the NOX Technical Code 

allows a ten percent allowance for inuse testing on residual fuel, to 

accommodate any marginal impact on 

NOX and also to reflect the fact that the 

engine would be adjusted differently to 

operate on residual fuel. 

The Annex VI approach was rejected 

for our national Category 1 and Category 

2 engines standards. We noted in our 

1999 FRM that residual fuel is 

sufficiently different from distillate as to 

be an alternative fuel. We also noted 

that changes to an engine to make it 

operable on residual fuel could 

constitute a violation of the tampering 

prohibition in § 94.1103(a)(3). More 

importantly, however, all of our 

emission control programs are 

predicated on an engine meeting the 

emission standards in use. We have a 

variety of provisions that help ensure 

this outcome, including specifying the 

useful life of an engine, specification of 

an emission deterioration factor, 

durability testing, and not-to-exceed 

zone requirements to ensure compliance 

over the range of operations an engine 

is likely to see in-use. These provisions 

are necessary to ensure that the 

emission reductions we expect from the 

emission limits actually occur. This 

would not be the case with the Annex 

VI approach. While an engine may pass 

the certification requirements using 

distillate fuel, it is unclear what 

emission reductions would actually 

occur from engines using residual fuel. 

So, for example, while the Annex VI 

NOX limits were expected to achieve a 

30 percent reduction from uncontrolled 

levels for marine diesel engines, we 

estimated the actual reduction for 

residual fuel Category 3 engines to be 

closer to 20 percent (see 68 FR 9777, 

February 28, 2003). 

For these reasons, our existing 

requirements for engines less than 30 l/ 

cyl displacement require certification 

that specifies that if a Category 1 or 

Category 2 engine is designed to be 

capable of using a fuel other than or in 

addition to distillate fuel (e.g., natural 

gas, methanol, or nondistillate diesel, or 

a mixed fuel), exhaust emission testing 

must be performed using a 

commercially available fuel of that type, 

with fuel specifications approved by us 

(40 CFR 94.108(b)(1)). 

In recent months, shipbuilders have 

notified us that they are unable to obtain 

certified Category 1 or Category 2 

residual fuel auxiliary engines for 

installation on newly built vessels with 

Category 3 propulsion engines. The 

standard building practice for these 

vessels is to install auxiliary engines 

that use the same fuel, residual fuel, as 

the propulsion engine. This approach is 

common throughout the industry 

because it simplifies the fuel handling 

systems for the vessel (only one grade of 

fuel is required for the vessel’s primary 

power plants, although there may be 

one or two smaller distillate fuel 

auxiliary engines for emergency 

purposes) and it reduces the costs of 

operating the vessel (residual fuel is less 

expensive than distillate fuel). 

Shipbuilders indicated they have been 

unable to find Category 1 or Category 2 

auxiliary engines certified to the Tier 2 

standards on residual fuel. Engine 

manufacturers have indicated that they 

have not certified these engines on 

residual fuel because it is not profitable 

to do this for only the U.S. market 

(according to the U.S. Maritime 

Administration, while the U.S. fleet of 

ocean-going vessels above 10,000 

deadweight tons is 13th largest in the 

world with 295 vessels, there were only 

13 vessels built in 2005).133 Engine 

manufacturers also informed us that 

they are not sure they could meet the 

PM limits for the Category 1 engines on 

residual fuel. 

The most obvious solution for vessels 

in this situation is to install and use 

certified distillate fuel engines. Ship 

builders have indicated that this option 

would be prohibitively expensive for 

ship owners and have asked EPA to 

reconsider the control program for these 

engines. We are requesting comment on 

this issue, and especially on the costs 

associated with installing and using 

distillate auxiliary engines instead of 

residual auxiliary engines on these 

vessels. We are particularly interested in 

data that would indicate whether such 

additional costs would represent an 

undue burden to the owners of these 

vessels and whether the additional cost 

in terms of tons of PM and NOX reduced 

would be significantly higher than what 

is required of users of non-residual fuel 

auxiliary engines. 

One possibility to address the 

shipbuilders’ concerns would be to 

create a compliance flexibility for 

auxiliary engines intended to be 

installed on vessels with Category 3 

propulsion engines. The flexibility 

could consist of pulling ahead NOX

aftertreatment for these engines by 

setting a tighter NOX limit (1.8 g/kW-hr) 

while setting an alternative PM limit 

(0.5 g/kW-hr) equivalent to the Tier 2 

Category 2 limit. These engines would 

still be required to be certified on 

residual fuel, for the reasons described 

above. However, we could allow 

alternative PM measurement 

procedures, such as a two-step approach 

that would remove the water component 

of the exhaust, which would take into 

account the difficulty in measuring PM 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16006 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

134The estimated 2030 social welfare cost of 

567.3 million is based on an earlier version of the 

engineering costs of the rule which estimated 

$568.3 million engineering costs in 2030 (see table 

V–15). The current engineering cost estimate for 

2030 is $605 million. See section V.C.5 for an 

explanation of the difference. The estimated social 

costs of the program will be updated for the final 

rule. 

when the sulfur levels of the test fuel 

are high. 

Controlling emissions from residual 

fuelled engines is inherently difficult 

due to the characteristics of residual 

fuels. In particular, the high levels of 

sulfur and other metals present in 

residual fuel lead to high levels of PM 

emissions and can damage catalyst 

based emission control technologies. 

Urea SCR catalyst systems have been 

developed to work under similar 

conditions for coal fired power plants 

and some marine applications. We 

project that these solutions could be 

used to enable a residual fuelled marine 

diesel engine to meet the same emission 

NOX emission standard as distillate 

fuelled engines of 1.8 g/kWhr. 

Unfortunately, the high levels of sulfur 

and other metals in residual fuels make 

it impossible to apply catalyst based 

emission control systems to reduce PM 

emissions. Stationary residual fuelled 

engines have demonstrated that PM 

emission levels around 0.5 g/kWhr are 

possible, and we believe similar 

solutions can be applied to these same 

engines in marine applications. 

Such a compliance flexibility would 

not be automatic; engine manufacturers 

would have to apply for it. This is 

necessary to ensure that the questions of 

test fuel and PM measurement are 

resolved before the certification testing 

begins. In addition, engines would have 

to be labeled as intended for use only 

as auxiliary engines onboard vessels 

with Category 3 propulsion engines. 

We are requesting comment on all 

aspects of this compliance flexibility, 

including the need for it and how it 

should be structured. 

V. Costs and Economic Impacts 

In this section, we present the 

projected cost impacts and cost 

effectiveness of the proposed standards, 

and our analysis of potential economic 

impacts on affected markets. The 

projected benefits and benefit-cost 

analysis are presented in Section VI. 

The benefit-cost analysis explores the 

net yearly economic benefits to society 

of the reduction in mobile source 

emissions likely to be achieved by this 

rulemaking. The economic impact 

analysis explores how the costs of the 

rule will likely be shared across the 

manufacturers and users of the engines 

and equipment that would be affected 

by the standards. 

The total monetized benefits of the 

proposed standards, when based on 

published scientific studies of the risk 

of PM-related premature mortality, these 

benefits are projected to be more than 

$12 billion in 2030, assuming a 3 

percent discount rate (or $11 billion 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate). Our 

estimate of total monetized benefits 

based on the PM-related premature 

mortality expert elicitation is between 

$4.6 billion and $33 billion in 2030, 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or 

$4.3 and $30 billion assuming a 7 

percent discount rate). The social costs 

of the proposed program are estimated 

to be approximately $600 million in 

2030.134 The impact of these costs on 

society are estimated to be minimal, 

with the prices of rail and marine 

transportation services estimated to 

increase by less about 0.4 percent for 

locomotive transportation services and 

about 0.6 percent for marine 

transportation services. 

Further information on these and 

other aspects of the economic impacts of 

our proposal are summarized in the 

following sections and are presented in 

more detail in the Draft RIA for this 

rulemaking. We invite the reader to 

comment on all aspects of these 

analyses, including our methodology 

and the assumptions and data that 

underlie our analysis. 

A. Engineering Costs 

The following sections briefly discuss 

the various engine and equipment cost 

elements considered for this proposal 

and present the total engineering costs 

we have estimated for this rulemaking; 

the reader is referred to Chapter 5 of the 

draft RIA for a complete discussion of 

our engineering cost estimates. When 

referring to ‘‘equipment’’ costs 

throughout this discussion, we mean the 

locomotive and/or marine vessel related 

costs as opposed to costs associated 

with the diesel engine being placed into 

the locomotive or vessel. Estimated new 

engine and equipment engineering costs 

depend largely on both the size of the 

piece of equipment and its engine, and 

on the technology package being added 

to the engine to ensure compliance with 

the proposed standards. The wide size 

variation of engines covered by this 

proposal (e.g., small marine engines 

with less than 37 kW (50 horsepower, or 

hp) through locomotive and marine C2 

engines with over 3000 kW (4000 hp) 

and the broad application variation (e.g., 

small pleasure crafts through large line 

haul locomotives and cargo vessels) that 

exists in these industries makes it 

difficult to present an estimated cost for 

every possible engine and/or piece of 

equipment. Nonetheless, for illustrative 

purposes, we present some example per 

engine/equipment engineering cost 

impacts throughout this discussion. 

This engineering cost analysis is 

presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the 

draft RIA. 

Note that the engineering costs here 

do not reflect changes to the fuel used 

to power locomotive and marine 

engines. Our Nonroad Tier 4 rule (69 FR 

38958) controlled the sulfur level in all 

nonroad fuel, including that used in 

locomotives and marine engines. The 

sulfur level in the fuel is a critical 

element of the proposed locomotive and 

marine program. However, since the 

costs of controlling locomotive and 

marine fuel sulfur have been considered 

in our Nonroad Tier 4 rule, they are not 

considered here. This analysis considers 

only those costs associated with the 

proposed locomotive and marine 

program. Also, the engineering costs 

presented here do not reflect any 

savings that are expected to occur 

because of the engine ABT program and 

the various flexibilities included in the 

program which are discussed in section 

IV of this preamble. As discussed there, 

these program features have the 

potential to provide savings for both 

engine and locomotive/vessel 

manufacturers. We request comment 

with supporting data and/or analysis on 

the engineering cost estimates presented 

here and the underlying analysis 

presented in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. 

(1) New Engine and Equipment Variable 

Engineering Costs 

Engineering costs for exhaust 

emission control devices (i.e., catalyzed 

DPFs, urea SCR systems, and DOCs) 

were estimated using a methodology 

consistent with the one used in our 

2007 heavy-duty highway rulemaking. 

In that rule, surveys were provided to 

nine engine manufacturers seeking 

information relevant to estimating the 

engineering costs for and types of 

emission-control technologies that 

might be enabled with ultra low-sulfur 

diesel fuel (15 ppm S). The survey 

responses were used as the first step in 

estimating the engineering costs of 

advanced emission control technologies 

anticipated for meeting the 2007 heavyduty highway standards. We then built 

upon these engineering costs using 

input from members of the 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls 

Association (MECA). We also used this 

information in our recent nonroad Tier 

4 (NRT4) rule. Because the anticipated 

emission control technologies expected 

to be used on locomotive and marine 

engines are the same as or similar to 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16007 

135 ‘‘Economic Analysis of Diesel Aftertreatment 

System Changes Made Possible by Reduction of 

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content,’’ Engine, Fuel, and 

Emissions Engineering, Incorporated, December 15, 

1999, Public Docket No. A–2001–28, Docket Item 

II–A–76. 136The PM/NOX+NMHC cost allocations for 

variable costs used in this cost analysis are as 

follows: Urea SCR systems including marinization 

costs on marine applications are 100% 

NOX+NMHC; DPF systems including marinization 

costs on marine applications are 100% PM; and, 

equipment hardware costs are split evenly. 

those expected for highway and 

nonroad engines, and because the 

expected suppliers of the technologies 

are the same for these engines, we have 

used that analysis as the starting point 

for estimating the engineering costs of 

these technologies in this rule.135

Importantly, the analysis summarized 

here and detailed in the draft RIA takes 

into account specific differences 

between the locomotive and marine 

products when compared to on-highway 

trucks (e.g., engine size). 

Engineering costs of control include 

variable costs (for new hardware, its 

assembly, and associated markups) and 

fixed costs (for tooling, research, 

redesign efforts, and certification). We 

are projecting that the Tier 3 standards 

will be met by optimizing the engine 

and emission controls that will exist on 

locomotive and marine engines in the 

Tier 3 timeframe. Therefore, we have 

estimated no hardware costs associated 

with the Tier 3 standards. For the Tier 

4 standards, we are projecting that SCR 

systems and DPFs will be the most 

likely technologies used to comply. 

Upon installation in a new locomotive 

or a new marine vessel, these devices 

would require some new equipment 

related hardware in the form of brackets 

and new sheet metal. The annual 

variable costs for example years, the 

PM/NOX split of those engineering 

costs, and the net present values that 

would result are presented in Table V–

1.136 As shown, we estimate the net 

present value for the years 2006 through 

2040 of all variable costs at $1.4 billion 

using a three percent discount rate, with 

$1.3 billion of that being engine-related 

variable costs. Using a seven percent 

discount rate, these costs are $630 

million and $586 million, respectively. 

TABLE V–1.—NEW ENGINE AND EQUIPMENT VARIABLE ENGINEERING COSTS

[$Millions] 

Year 

Engine variable engineering costs Equipment 

variable engineering costs 

Total variable 

engineering 

costs 

Total for PM Total for 

NOX+NMHC 

2011 ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

2012 ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

2015 ..................................................................................... 32 4 36 34 2 

2020 ..................................................................................... 87 6 94 49 45 

2030 ..................................................................................... 105 8 113 59 54 

2040 ..................................................................................... 104 8 112 59 53 

NPV at 3% ........................................................................... 1,297 99 1,395 749 646 

NPV at 7% ........................................................................... 586 44 630 342 288 

We can also look at these variable 

engineering costs on a per engine basis 

rather than an annual total basis. Doing 

so results in the costs summarized in 

Table V–2. These costs represent the 

engineering costs for a typical engine 

placed into a piece of equipment within 

each of the given market segments and, 

where applicable, power ranges on a 

one-to-one basis (i.e., one engine per 

locomotive or vessel). For a vessel using 

two engines, the costs would be double 

those shown. The costs shown represent 

the total engine-related engineering 

hardware costs associated with all of the 

proposed emissions standards (Tier 3 

and Tier 4) to which the given power 

range and market segment would need 

to comply. For example, a commercial 

marine engine below 600 kW (805 hp) 

would need to comply with the Tier 3 

standards as its final tier and would, 

therefore, incur no new hardware costs. 

In contrast, while a commercial marine 

engine over 600 kW is expected to 

comply with both Tier 3 and then Tier 

4 and would, therefore, incur engine 

hardware costs associated with the Tier 

4 standards. The costs also represent 

long term costs or those costs after 

expected learning effects have occurred 

and warranty costs have stabilized. 

TABLE V–2.—2 LONG-TERM VARIABLE ENGINEERING COST PER NEW ENGINE TO COMPLY WITH THE FINAL TIER OF

STANDARDS

[$/engine] 

Power range Locomotive 

line haul 

Locomotive 

switcher a C1 Marine C2 Marine Recreational 

marine b Small marine 

<50 Hp (<37 kW) ..................................... (c) ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ d$0 

50≤hp<75 (37<=kW<56) .......................... ........................ ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................

75≤hp<200 (56<=kW<149) ...................... ........................ ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................

200≤hp<400 (149≤kW<298) .................... ........................ ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................

400≤hp<800 (298≤kW<597) .................... ........................ ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................

800≤hp<2000 (597≤kW<1492) ................ ........................ ........................ 11,560 29,980 0 ........................

≥2000 Hp (≥1492 kW) ............................. 54,650 13,640 20,550 55,770 0 ........................

a Locomotive switchers generally use land based nonroad engines (i.e., NRT4 engines); therefore, we have used NRT4 cost estimates for locomotive switchers in this rulemaking. b Recreational marine engines >2000 kW are considered within the C1 Marine category. 

cA blank entry means there are no engines in that market segment/power range. 

d $0 means costs are estimated at $0. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16008 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

137The PM/NOX+NMHC cost allocations for fixed 

costs used in this cost analysis are as follows: 

Engine research expenditures are 67% NOX+NMHC 

and 33% PM; engine tooling and certification costs 

are split evenly; and, equipment redesign costs are 

split evenly. 

138The PM/NOX+NMHC cost allocations for 

operating costs used in this cost analysis are as 

follows: Urea costs are 100% NOX+NMHC; DPF 

maintenance costs are 100% PM; and, fuel 

consumption impacts are split evenly. 

(2) New Engine and Equipment Fixed 

Engineering Costs 

Because these technologies are being 

researched for implementation in the 

highway and nonroad markets well 

before the locomotive and marine 

emission standards take effect, and 

because engine manufacturers will have 

had several years complying with the 

highway and nonroad standards, we 

believe that the technologies used to 

comply with the locomotive and marine 

standards will have undergone 

significant development before reaching 

locomotive and marine production. In 

fact, we believe that this transfer of 

learning—from highway to nonroad to 

locomotive and marine—is real and 

have quantified it. Chapter 5 of the draft 

RIA details our approach and we seek 

comment on the 10 percent and 70 

percent factors we have employed at 

each transfer step. We anticipate that 

engine manufacturers would introduce a 

combination of primary technology 

upgrades to meet the new emission 

standards. Achieving very low NOX

emissions requires basic research on 

NOX emission-control technologies and 

improvements in engine management. 

There would also have to be some level 

of tooling expenditures to make possible 

the fitting of new hardware on 

locomotive and marine engines. We also 

expect that locomotives and marine 

vessels being fitted with Tier 4 engines 

would have to undergo some level of 

redesign to accommodate the 

aftertreatment devices expected to meet 

the Tier 4 standards. The total of fixed 

engineering costs and the net present 

values of those costs are shown in Table 

V–3.137 As shown, we have estimated 

the net present value for the years 2006 

through 2040 of all fixed engineering 

costs at $424 million using a three 

percent discount rate, with $381 million 

of that being engine-related fixed costs. 

Using a seven percent discount rate, 

these costs are $324 million and $297 

million, respectively. 

TABLE V–3.—ENGINE AND EQUIPMENT FIXED ENGINEERING COSTS

($Million) 

Year Engine 

research 

Engine 

tooling 

Engine 

certification 

Equipment 

redesign 

Total 

fixed 

engineering 

costs 

Total 

for PM 

Total for 

NOX+NMHC 

2011 ................................................................................. 75 19 5 0 99 39 59 

2012 ................................................................................. 55 0 0 0 55 18 37 

2015 ................................................................................. 51 17 1 22 90 34 56 

2020 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 4 4 2 2 

2030 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2040 ................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NPV at 3% ....................................................................... 341 33 7 43 424 155 269 

NPV at 7% ....................................................................... 267 24 6 27 324 118 206 

Some of the estimated fixed 

engineering costs would occur in years 

prior to the Tier 3 standards taking 

affect in 2012. Engine manufacturers 

would need to invest in engine tooling 

and certification prior to selling engines 

that meet the standards. Engine research 

is expected to begin five years in 

advance of the standards for which the 

research is done. We have estimated 

some engine research for both the Tier 

3 and Tier 4 standards, although the 

research associated with the Tier 4 

standards is expected to be higher since 

it involves work on aftertreatment 

devices which only the Tier 4 standards 

would require. By 2017, the Tier 4 

standards would be fully implemented 

and engine research toward the Tier 4 

standards would be completed. 

Similarly, engine tooling and 

certification efforts would be completed. 

We have estimated that equipment 

redesign, driven mostly by marine 

vessel redesigns, would continue for 

many years given the nature of the 

marine market. Therefore, by 2017 all 

engine-related fixed engineering costs 

would be zero, and by 2024 all 

equipment-related fixed engineering 

costs would be zero. 

(3) Engine Operating Costs 

We anticipate an increase in costs 

associated with operating locomotives 

and marine vessels. We anticipate three 

sources of increased operating costs: 

urea use; DPF maintenance; and a fuel 

consumption impact. Increased 

operating costs associated with urea use 

would occur only in those locomotives/ 

vessels equipped with a urea SCR 

engine. Maintenance costs associated 

with the DPF (for periodic cleaning of 

accumulated ash resulting from 

unburned material that accumulates in 

the DPF) would occur in those 

locomotives/vessels that are equipped 

with a DPF engine. The fuel 

consumption impact is anticipated to 

occur more broadly—we expect that a 

one percent fuel consumption increase 

would occur for all new Tier 4 engines, 

locomotive and marine, due to higher 

exhaust backpressure resulting from 

aftertreatment devices. We also expect a 

one percent fuel consumption increase 

would occur for remanufactured Tier 0 

locomotives due to our expectation that 

the tighter NOX standard would be met 

using retarded timing. These costs and 

how the fleet cost estimates were 

generated are detailed in Chapter 5 of 

the draft RIA and are summarized in 

Table V–4.138


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16009 

139Costs associated with the remanufacturing 

program are split evenly between NOX+NMHC and 

PM. 

TABLE V–4.—ESTIMATED INCREASED OPERATING COSTS

($Millions) 

Year Urea 

use 

DPF 

maintenance 

Fuel 

consumption 

impact 

Total 

operating 

costs 

Total 

for PM 

Total for 

NOX+MHC 

2011 ....................................................................................................... 0 0 11 11 5 5 

2012 ....................................................................................................... 0 0 13 13 6 6 

2015 ....................................................................................................... 4 0 21 25 11 15 

2020 ....................................................................................................... 85 3 50 137 28 110 

2030 ....................................................................................................... 300 8 99 407 57 350 

2040 ....................................................................................................... 458 11 142 611 82 528 

NPV at 3% ............................................................................................. 2,850 74 1,116 4,039 631 3,408 

NPV at 7% ............................................................................................. 1,090 29 477 1,595 267 1,328 

As shown, we have estimated the net 

present value for the years 2006 through 

2040 of the annual operating costs at $4 

billion using a three percent discount 

rate and $1.6 billion using a seven 

percent discount rate. The urea and DPF 

maintenance costs are zero until Tier 4 

engines start being sold since only the 

Tier 4 engines are expected to add these 

technologies. Urea use represents the 

largest source of increased operating 

costs. Because urea use is meant for 

controlling NOX emissions, most of the 

operating costs are associated with 

NOX+NMHC control. 

(4) Engineering Costs Associated With 

the Remanufacturing Program 

We have also estimated engineering 

costs associated with the locomotive 

remanufacturing program. The 

remanufacturing process is not a low 

cost endeavor. However, it is much less 

costly than purchasing a new engine. 

The engineering costs we have 

estimated associated with the 

remanufacturing program are not meant 

to capture the remanufacturing process 

but rather the incremental engineering 

costs to that process. Therefore, the 

remanufacturing costs estimated here 

are only those engineering costs 

resulting from the proposed requirement 

to meet a more stringent standard than 

the engine was designed to meet at its 

original sale. These engineering costs 

and how the fleet cost estimates were 

generated are detailed in Chapter 5 of 

the draft RIA and are summarized in 

Table V–5.139 As shown, we have 

estimated the net present value for the 

years 2006 through 2040 of the annual 

engineering costs associated with the 

locomotive remanufacturing program at 

$1.4 billion using a three percent 

discount rate and $682 million using a 

seven percent discount rate. 

TABLE V–5.—ESTIMATED ENGINEERING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOCOMOTIVE REMANUFACTURING PROGRAM

($Millions) 

Year 

Remanufacturing 

Program 

Costs 

Total for 

PM 

Total for 

NOX+NMHC 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................................. 97 49 49 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................................. 75 37 37 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 15 15 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 8 8 

2030 ............................................................................................................................................................. 85 43 43 

2040 ............................................................................................................................................................. 153 77 77 

NPV at 3% ................................................................................................................................................... 1,374 687 687 

NPV at 7% ................................................................................................................................................... 682 341 341 

(5) Total Engineering Costs 

The total engineering costs associated 

with today’s proposal are the 

summation of the engine and equipment 

engineering costs, both fixed and 

variable, the operating costs, and the 

engineering costs associated with the 

locomotive remanufacturing program. 

These costs are summarized in Table 

V–6. 

TABLE V–6.—TOTAL ENGINEERING COSTS OF THE PROPOSAL

[$Millions] 

Year 

Engine related 

engineering 

costs 

Equipment 

related engineering costs 

Operating 

costs 

Engineering 

costs of the 

remanufacturing program 

Total 

engineering 

costs 

Total PM costs 

Total 

NOX+NMHC 

costs 

2011 ............................. 99 0 11 97 207 93 113 

2012 ............................. 55 0 13 75 142 62 80 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16010 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–6.—TOTAL ENGINEERING COSTS OF THE PROPOSAL—Continued 

[$Millions] 

Year 

Engine related 

engineering 

costs 

Equipment 

related engineering costs 

Operating 

costs 

Engineering 

costs of the 

remanufacturing program 

Total 

engineering 

costs 

Total PM costs 

Total 

NOX+NMHC 

costs 

2015 ............................. 100 25 25 31 181 93 88 

2020 ............................. 87 10 187 15 250 836 164 

2030 ............................. 105 8 407 85 605 159 446 

2040 ............................. 104 8 611 153 876 218 658 

NPV at 3% ................... 1,678 141 4,039 1,374 7,233 2,222 5,011 

NPV at 7% ................... 883 71 1,595 682 3,231 1,068 2,163 

As shown, we have estimated the net 

present value of the annual engineering 

costs for the years 2006 through 2040 at 

$7.2 billion using a three percent 

discount rate and $3.2 billion using a 

seven percent discount rate. Roughly 

half of these costs are operating costs, 

with the bulk of those being urea related 

costs. As explained above in the 

operating cost discussion, because urea 

use is meant for controlling NOX

emissions, most of the operating costs 

and, therefore, the majority of the total 

engineering costs are associated with 

NOX+NMHC control. 

Figure V–1 graphically depicts the 

annual engineering costs associated 

with today’s proposed program. The 

engine costs shown represent the 

engineering costs associated with engine 

research and tooling, etc., and the 

incremental costs for new hardware 

such as DPFs and urea SCR systems. 

The equipment costs shown represent 

the engineering costs associated with 

equipment redesign efforts and the 

incremental costs for new equipmentrelated hardware such as sheet metal 

and brackets. The remanufacturing 

program costs include incremental 

engineering costs for the locomotive 

remanufacturing program. The operating 

costs include incremental increases in 

operating costs associated with urea use, 

DPF maintenance, and a one percent 

fuel consumption increase for Tier 4 

engines and remanufactured Tier 0 

locomotives. The total program 

engineering costs are shown in Table V–

6 as $7.2 billion at a three percent 

discount rate and $3.2 billion at a seven 

percent discount rate. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16011 

B. Cost Effectiveness 

One tool that can be used to assess the 

value of the proposed program 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 and detailed 

in the draft RIA, the locomotive and 

marine diesel program being proposed 

today represents a highly cost effective 

mobile source control program for 

reducing PM and NOX emissions. 

We have calculated the cost per ton of 

our proposed program based on the net 

present value of all engineering costs 

incurred and all emission reductions 

generated from the current year 2006 

through the year 2040. This approach 

captures all of the costs and emissions 

reductions from our proposed program 

including those costs incurred and 

emissions reductions generated by the 

locomotive remanufacturing program. 

The baseline case for this evaluation is 

the existing set of engine standards for 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

and the existing locomotive 

remanufacturing requirements. The 

analysis timeframe is meant to capture 

both the early period of the program 

when very few new engines that meet 

the proposed standards would be in the 

fleet, and the later period when 

essentially all engines would meet the 

new standards. 

Table V–7 shows the emissions 

reductions associated with today’s 

proposal. These reductions are 

discussed in more detail in section II of 

this preamble and Chapter 3 of the draft 

RIA. 

TABLE V–7.—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE

STANDARDS

[Short tons] 

Year PM2.5 PM10a NOX NMHC 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 7,000 7,000 84,000 14,000 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.006</GPH>
16012 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

140 ‘‘Long-term’’ cost here refers to the ongoing 

cost of the program where only operating and 

variable costs remain (no more fixed costs). We 

have chosen 2030 to represent those costs here. 

TABLE V–7.—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE

STANDARDS—Continued 

[Short tons] 

Year PM2.5 PM10a NOX NMHC 

2020 ................................................................................................................. 15,000 15,000 293,000 25,000 

2030 ................................................................................................................. 28,000 29,000 765,000 39,000 

2040 ................................................................................................................. 38,000 40,000 1,123,000 50,000 

NPV at 3% ....................................................................................................... 315,000 325,000 7,869,000 480,000 

NPV at 7% ....................................................................................................... 136,000 140,000 3,188,000 216,000 

a Note that, PM2.5 is estimated to be 97 percent of the more inclusive PM10 emission inventory. In Section II we generate and present PM2.5 inventories since recent research has determined that these are of greater health concern. Traditionally, we have used PM10 in our cost effectiveness calculations. Since cost effectiveness is a means of comparing control measures to one another, we use PM10 in our cost effectiveness calculations for comparisons to past control measures. 

Using the engineering costs shown in 

Table V–6 and the emission reductions 

shown in Table V–7, we can calculate 

the $/ton associated with today’s 

proposal. These are shown in Table V–

8. The resultant cost per ton numbers 

depend on how the engineering costs 

presented above are allocated to each 

pollutant. Therefore, as described in 

section V.A, we have allocated costs as 

closely as possible to the pollutants for 

which they are incurred. These 

allocations are also discussed in detail 

in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. 

TABLE V–8.—PROPOSED PROGRAM AGGREGATE COST PER TON AND LONG-TERM ANNUAL COST PER TON

Pollutant 

2006 thru 

2040 discounted lifetime cost per 

ton at 3% 

2006 thru 

2040 discounted lifetime cost per 

ton at 7% 

Long-term cost 

per ton in 

2030 

NOX+NMHC ................................................................................................................................. $600 $630 $550 

PM ................................................................................................................................................ 6,840 7,640 5,560 

The costs per ton shown in Table V–

8 for 2006 through 2040 use the net 

present value of the annualized 

engineering costs and emissions 

reductions associated with the program 

for the years 2006 through 2040. We 

have also calculated the costs per ton of 

emissions reduced in the year 2030 

using the annual engineering costs and 

emissions reductions in that year alone. 

These numbers are also shown in Table 

V–8 and represent the long-term annual 

costs per ton of emissions reduced.140

All of the costs per ton include costs 

and emission reductions that will occur 

from the locomotive remanufacturing 

program. 

In comparison with other emissions 

control programs, we believe that the 

proposed locomotive and marine 

program represents a cost effective 

strategy for generating substantial 

NOX+NMHC and PM reductions. This 

can be seen by comparing the cost 

effectiveness of this proposed with the 

cost effectiveness of a number of 

standards that EPA has adopted in the 

past.Table V–9 and Table V–10 

summarize the cost per ton of several 

past EPA actions to reduce emissions of 

NOX+NMHC and PM from mobile 

sources. 

TABLE V–9.—PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE

AND MARINE STANDARDS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS MOBILE

SOURCE

[Programs for NOX+NMHC] 

Program $/ton 

NOX+NMHC 

Today’s locomotive & marine 

proposal ............................ 600 

Tier 4 Nonroad Diesel (69 

FR 39131) ......................... 1,010 

Tier 2 Nonroad Diesel 

(EPA420–R–98–016, 

Chapter 6) ......................... 630 

Tier 3 Nonroad Diesel 

(EPA420–R–98–016, 

Chapter 6) ......................... 430 

Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur 

(65 FR 6774) ..................... 1,400–2,350 

2007 Highway HD (66 FR 

5101) ................................. 2,240 

2004 Highway HD (65 FR 

59936) ............................... 220–430 

Note: Costs adjusted to 2002 dollars using 

the Producer Price Index for Total Manufacturing Industries. 

TABLE V–10.—PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE STANDARDS

COMPARED TO PREVIOUS MOBILE

SOURCE

[Programs for PM] 

Program $/ton PM 

Today’s locomotive & marine 

proposal ............................ 6,840 

Tier 4 Nonroad Diesel (69 

FR 39131) ......................... 11,200 

Tier 1/Tier 2 Nonroad Diesel 

(EPA420–R–98–016, 

Chapter 6) ......................... 2,390 

2007 Highway HD (66 FR 

5101) ................................. 14,180 

Note: Costs adjusted to 2002 dollars using 

the Producer Price Index for Total Manufacturing Industries. 

C. EIA 

We prepared an Economic Impact 

Analysis (EIA) to estimate the economic 

impacts of the proposed emission 

control program on the locomotive and 

marine diesel engine and vessel 

markets. In this section we briefly 

describe the Economic Impact Model 

(EIM) we developed to estimate the 

market-level changes in price and 

outputs for affected markets, the social 

costs of the program, and the expected 

distribution of those costs across 

stakeholders. We also present the results 

of our analysis. We request comment on 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16013 

141All estimates presented in this section are in 

2005$. 

142The estimated 2030 social welfare cost of 

267.3 million is based on an earlier version of the 

engineering costs of the rule which estimated 

$568.3 million engineering costs in 2030 (see table 

V–17). The current engineering cost estimate for 

2030 is $605 million. See section V.C.5 for an 

explanation of the difference. The estimated social 

costs of the program will be updated for the final 

rule. 

143EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, p 

113. A copy of this document can be found at 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/

Guidelines.html 

all aspects of the analysis, including the 

model and the model inputs. 

We estimate the net social costs of the 

proposed program to be approximately 

$600 million in 2030.141 142 The rail 

sector is expected to bear about 64 

percent of the social costs of the 

program in 2030, and the marine sector 

is expected to bear about 36 percent. In 

each of these two sectors, these social 

costs are expected to be born primarily 

by producers and users of locomotive 

and marine transportation services (63.3 

and 33.2 percent, respectively). The 

remaining 3.5 percent is expected to be 

borne by locomotive, marine engine, 

and marine vessel manufacturers and 

fishing and recreational users. 

With regard to market-level impacts 

in 2030, the average price of a 

locomotive is expected to increase about 

2.6 percent ($49,100 per unit), but sales 

are not expected to decrease. In the 

marine markets, the expected impacts 

are different for engines above and 

below 800 hp (600 kW). With regard to 

engines above 800 hp and the vessels 

that use them, the average price of an 

engine is expected to increase by about 

8.4 percent for C1 engines and 18.7 

percent for C2 engines ($13,300 and 

$48,700, respectively). However, the 

expected impact of these increased 

prices on the average price of vessels 

that use these engines is smaller, at 

about 1.1 percent and 3.6 percent 

respectively ($16,200 and $141,600). 

The decrease in engine and vessel 

production is expected to be negligible, 

at less than 10 units. For engines less 

than 800 hp and the vessels that use 

them, the expected price increase and 

quantity decrease are expected to be 

negligible, less than 0.1 percent. Finally, 

even with the increases in the prices of 

locomotives and large marine diesel 

engines, the expected impacts on prices 

in the locomotive and marine 

transportation service markets are small, 

at 0.4 and 0.6 percent, respectively. 

(1) What Is an Economic Impact 

Analysis? 

An EIA is prepared to inform decision 

makers about the potential economic 

consequences of a regulatory action. The 

analysis consists of estimating the social 

costs of a regulatory program and the 

distribution of these costs across 

stakeholders. These estimated social 

costs can then be compared with 

estimated social benefits presented 

above. As defined in EPA’s Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses, 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.143 In this analysis, 

social costs are explored in two steps. In 

the market analysis, we estimate how 

prices and quantities of goods and 

services affected by the proposed 

emission control program can be 

expected to change once 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) What Is the Economic Impact Model? 

The EIM is the behavioral model we 

developed to estimate price and 

quantity changes and total social costs 

associated with the emission controls 

under consideration. The EIM simulates 

how producers and consumers of 

affected products can be expected to 

respond to an increase in production 

costs as a result of the proposed 

emission control program. In this EIM, 

compliance costs are directly borne by 

producers of affected goods. 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. In response to 

the price increases, consumers will 

decrease their demand for the affected 

good. Producers will react to the 

decrease in quantity demanded by 

decreasing the quantity they produce; 

the market will react by setting a higher 

price for those fewer units. These 

interactions continue until a new 

market equilibrium price and quantity 

combination is achieved. The amount of 

the compliance costs that can be passed 

on to consumers is ultimately limited by 

the price sensitivity of purchasers and 

producers in the relevant market 

(represented by the price elasticity of 

demand and supply). The EIM explicitly 

models these behavioral responses and 

estimates new equilibrium prices and 

output and the resulting distribution of 

social costs across these stakeholders 

(producers and consumers). 

(3) What Economic Sectors Are 

Included in This Economic Impact 

Analysis? 

In this EIA we estimate the impacts of 

the proposed emission control program 

on two broad sectors: rail and marine. 

The markets analyzed are summarized 

in Table V–11. 

TABLE V–11.—ECONOMIC SECTORS INCLUDED IN THE LOCO/MARINE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL

Sector Market Demand Supply 

Rail ............... Rail Transportation 

Services.

Entities that use rail transportation services as 

production input or for personal transportation.

Railroads. 

Locomotives .................. Railroads ............................................................... Locomotive manufacturers (integrated manufacturers). 

Marine .......... Marine Transportation 

Services.

Entities that use marine transportation services 

as production input.

Entities that provide marine transportation services. 

• Tug/tow/pushboat companies. 

• Cargo companies. 

• Ferry companies. 

• Supply/crew companies. 

• Other commercial users. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16014 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

144Until recently, switchers have typically been 

converted line haul locomotives and very few, if 

any, new dedicated switchers were built in any 

year. Recently, however, the power and other 

characteristics of line haul locomotives have made 

them less attractive for switcher usage. Their high 

power means they consume more fuel than smaller 

locomotives, and they have less attractive line-ofsight characteristics than what is needed for 

switchers. Therefore, the industry is anticipating a 

new market for dedicated switchers. 

TABLE V–11.—ECONOMIC SECTORS INCLUDED IN THE LOCO/MARINE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL—Continued 

Sector Market Demand Supply 

Marine Vessels .............. Entities that provide marine transportation services.

• Tug/tow/pushboat companies. ...........................

• Cargo companies. ..............................................

• Ferry companies. ...............................................

• Supply/crew companies. ....................................

• Other commercial users. ...................................

• Fishing persons. ................................................

• Recreation users. ...............................................

Vessel manufacturers. 

Marine Diesel Engines .. Vessel manufacturers ............................................ Engine manufacturers. 

(a) Rail Sector Component 

The rail sector component of the EIM 

is a two-level model consisting of 

suppliers and users of locomotives and 

rail transportation services. 

Locomotive Market. The locomotive 

market consists of locomotive 

manufacturers (line haul, switcher, and 

passenger) on the supply side and 

railroads on the demand side. The vast 

majority of locomotives built in any 

given year are for line haul applications; 

a small number of passenger 

locomotives are built every year, and 

even fewer switchers. The locomotive 

market is characterized by integrated 

manufacturers (the engine and 

locomotive are made by the same 

manufacturer) and therefore the engine 

and equipment impacts are modeled 

together. The EIM does not distinguish 

between power bands for locomotives. 

This is because while there is some 

variation in power for different engine 

models, the range is not large. On 

average line haul locomotives are 

typically about 4,000 hp, passenger 

locomotives are about 3,000 hp, and 

switchers are about 2,000 hp. 

Recently, a new switcher market is 

emerging in which manufacturers are 

expected to be less integrated, and the 

manufacturer of the engine is expected 

to be separate from the manufacturer of 

the switcher.144 Because the 

characteristics of this new market are 

speculative at this time, the switcher 

market component of the EIM is 

modeled in the same way as line haul 

locomotives (integrated manufacturers; 

same behavioral parameters), but uses 

separate baseline equilibrium prices and 

quantities. The compliance costs used 

for switchers reflect the expected design 

characteristics for these locomotives and 

their lower total power. We request 

comment on the switcher aspect of the 

model. Consistent with the engineering 

cost analysis, the passenger market is 

combined with the switcher market in 

this EIA because we do not have 

separate compliance costs estimates for 

each of those two market segments. We 

request comment on this, and on 

whether it would be more appropriate to 

model the passenger market like the line 

haul market. 

Rail Transportation Services. The rail 

transportation services market consists 

of entities that provide and utilize rail 

transportation services. On this supply 

side, these are the railroads. On the 

demand side, these are rail 

transportation service users such as the 

chemical and agricultural industries and 

the personal transportation industry. 

The EIM does not estimate the economic 

impact of the proposed emission control 

program on ultimate finished goods 

markets that use rail transportation 

services as inputs. This is because 

transportation services are only a small 

portion of the total variable costs of 

goods and services manufactured using 

these bulk inputs. Also, changes in 

prices of transportation services due to 

the estimated compliance costs are not 

expected to be large enough to affect the 

prices and output of goods that use rail 

transportation services as an input. 

(b) Marine Sector Component 

The marine sector component of the 

EIM distinguishes between engine, 

vessel, and ultimate user markets 

(marine transportation service users, 

fishing users, recreational users). This is 

because, in contrast to the locomotive 

market, manufacturers in the diesel 

marine market are not integrated. 

Marine engines and vessels are 

manufactured by different entities. 

Marine Engine Market. The marine 

engine markets consist of marine engine 

manufacturers on the supply side and 

vessel manufacturers on the demand 

side. The model distinguishes between 

three types of engines, commercial 

propulsion, recreational propulsion, and 

auxiliary. Engines are broken out into 

eight categories based on rated power 

and displacement: small engines below 

50 hp (37 kW); five C1 engine categories 

(50–200 hp, 200–400 hp, 400–800 hp, 

800–2,000 hp, >2,000 hp); and two C2 

engine categories (800–2,000 hp, >2,000 

hp). For the purpose of the EIA, the C1/ 

C2 threshold is 5 l/cyl displacement, 

even though the new C1/C2 threshold is 

proposed to be 7 l/cyl displacement. 

The 5 l/cyl threshold was used because 

it is currently applicable limit. In 

addition, there is currently only one 

engine family in the 5 to 7 l/cyl range, 

and it is not possible to project what 

future sales will be in that range or if 

more engine families will be added. 

Marine Vessel Market. The marine 

vessel market consists of marine vessel 

manufacturers on the demand side and 

marine vessel users on the supply side. 

The model distinguishes between seven 

vessel categories: Recreational, fishing, 

tow/tug/push, ferry, supply/crew, cargo, 

and other. Each of these vessels would 

have at least one propulsion engine and 

at least one auxiliary engine. For fishing 

and recreational vessels, the purchasers 

of those vessels are the end users and so 

the EIM is a two-level model for those 

two markets. For the fishing market, this 

approach is appropriate because 

demand for fishing vessels comes 

directly from the fishing industry; 

fishing vessels are a fixed capital input 

for that industry. For the recreational 

market, demand for vessels comes 

directly from households that use these 

vessels for recreational activities and 

acquire them for the personal enjoyment 

of the owner. For the other commercial 

vessel markets (tow/tug/push, ferry, 

supply/crew, cargo, other), demand is 

derived from the transportation services 

they provide, and so demand is from the 

transportation service market and the 

providers of those services more 

specifically. Therefore it is necessary to 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16015 

145U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Innovative 

Strategies and Economics Group, OAQPS Economic 

Analysis Resource Document, April 1999. A copy 

of this document can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/Rmanual2/. 

146EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, pp. 

125–6. 

147See, for example, EPA Guidelines for 

Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, 

September 2000, p 126. 

include the marine transportation 

services market in the model. 

Marine Transportation Services. The 

marine transportation services market 

consists of entities that provide and 

utilize marine transportation services: 

vessel owners on the supply side and 

marine transportation service users on 

the demand side. The firms that use 

these marine transportation services are 

very similar to those that use locomotive 

transportation services: those needing to 

transport bulk chemicals and minerals, 

coal, agricultural products, etc. These 

transportation services are production 

inputs that depend on the amount of 

raw materials or finished products being 

transported and thus marine 

transportation costs are variable costs 

for the end user. Demand for these 

transportation services will determine 

the demand for vessels used to provide 

these services (tug/tow/pushboats, 

cargo, ferries, supply/crew, other 

commercial vessels). 

(c) Market Linkages 

The individual levels of the rail and 

marine components of the EIM are 

linked to provide feedback between 

consumers and producers in relevant 

markets. The locomotive and marine 

components of the EIM are not linked 

however, meaning there is no feedback 

mechanism between the locomotive and 

marine sectors. Although locomotives 

and marine vessels such as tugs, 

towboats, cargo, and ferries provide the 

same type of transportation service, the 

characteristics of these markets are quite 

different and are subject to different 

constraints that limit switching from 

one type of transportation service to the 

other. For the limited number of cases 

where there is direct competition 

between rail and marine transportation 

services, we do not expect this rule to 

change the dynamics of the choice 

between marine or rail providers of 

these services because (1) the estimated 

compliance costs imposed by this rule 

are relatively small in comparison with 

the total production costs of providing 

transportation services, and (2) both 

sectors would be subject to the new 

standards. 

(4) What Are the Key Features of the 

Economic Impact Model? 

A detailed description of the features 

of the EIM and the data used in this 

analysis is provided in Chapter 7 of the 

RIA prepared for this rule. The model 

methodology is firmly rooted in applied 

microeconomic theory and was 

developed following the methodology 

set out in OAQPS’s Economic Analysis 

Resource Document.145

The EIM is a computer model 

comprised of a series of spreadsheet 

modules that simulate the supply and 

demand characteristics of each of the 

markets under consideration. The initial 

market equilibrium conditions are 

shocked by applying the compliance 

costs for the control program to the 

supply side of the markets (this is done 

by shifting the relevant supply curves 

by the amount of the compliance costs). 

The EIM uses the model equations, 

model inputs, and a solution algorithm 

to estimate equilibrium prices and 

quantities for the markets with the 

regulatory program. These new prices 

and quantities are used to estimate the 

social costs of the model and how those 

costs are shared among affected markets. 

The EIM uses a multi-market partial 

equilibrium approach to track changes 

in price and quantity for the modeled 

markets. As explained in EPA’s 

Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses, ‘‘partial equilibrium’’ means 

that the model considers markets in 

isolation and that conditions in other 

markets are assumed to be either 

unaffected by a policy or unimportant 

for social cost estimation. Multi-market 

models go beyond partial equilibrium 

analysis by extending the inquiry to 

more than just a single market and 

attempt to capture at least some of the 

interaction between markets.146 In the 

marine sector, the model captures the 

interactions between the engine 

markets, the vessel markets, and the 

marine transportation service markets; 

in the rail sector, it captures the 

interactions between the locomotive 

markets and the rail transportation 

service markets. 

The EIM uses an intermediate run 

time frame. This means that some 

factors of production are fixed and some 

are variable. In very short analyses, all 

factors of production would be assumed 

to be fixed, leaving the producers with 

no means to respond to the increased 

production costs associated with the 

regulation (e.g., they cannot adjust labor 

or capital inputs). Under this time 

horizon, the costs of the regulation fall 

entirely on the producer. In the long 

run, all factors of production are 

variable and producers can adjust 

production in response to cost changes 

imposed by the regulation (e.g., using a 

different labor/capital mix) and changes 

in consumer demand due to price 

changes. In the intermediate run there is 

some resource immobility which may 

cause producers to suffer producer 

surplus losses, but they can also pass 

some of the compliance costs to 

consumers. 

The EIM assumes a perfectly 

competitive market structure. The 

perfect competition assumption is 

widely accepted for this type of 

analysis, and only in rare cases are other 

approaches used.147 It should be noted 

that the perfect competition assumption 

is not about the number of firms in a 

market; it is about how the market 

operates. The markets included in this 

analysis do not exhibit evidence of 

noncompetitive behavior: These are 

mature markets; there are no indications 

of barriers to entry for the marine 

transportation, fishing, and recreational 

markets; the firms in the affected 

markets are not price setters; and there 

is no evidence of high levels of strategic 

behavior in the price and quantity 

decisions of the firms. The perfect 

competition assumption is discussed in 

more detail in Chapter 7 of the RIA. 

The perfect competition assumption 

has an impact on the way the EIM is 

structured. In a competitive market the 

supply curve is based on the industry 

marginal cost curve; fixed costs do not 

influence production decisions at the 

margin. Therefore, in the market 

analysis, the model is shocked by 

variable costs only. However, an 

argument can be made that fixed costs 

must be recovered; otherwise 

manufacturers would go out of business. 

This analysis assumes that 

manufacturers cover their fixed costs 

through their current product 

development budgets. If this is the case, 

then the rule would have the effect of 

shifting product development resources 

to regulatory compliance from other 

market-based investment decisions. 

Thus, fixed costs are a cost to society 

because they displace other product 

development activities that may 

improve the quality or performance of 

engines and equipment. Therefore these 

costs are included in the social welfare 

costs, as a social cost that accrues to 

producers. We request comment on the 

extent to which manufacturers can be 

expected to use current product 

development resources to cover the 

fixed costs associated with the 

standards (thus foregoing product 

development projects in the short term), 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

and whether current product 

development budgets would cover the 

compliance costs in the year in which 

they occur. We also request comment on 

whether companies would instead 

attempt to pass on these fixed costs as 

an additional price increase and, if the 

latter, how much of the fixed costs 

would be passed on, and for how long. 

The EIM is a market-level analysis 

that estimates the aggregate economic 

impacts of the control program on the 

relevant markets. It is not a firm-level 

analysis and therefore the supply 

elasticity or individual compliance costs 

facing any particular manufacturer may 

be different from the market average. 

This difference can be important, 

particularly where the rule affects 

different firms’ costs over different 

volumes of production. However, to the 

extent there are differential effects, EPA 

believes that the wide array of 

flexibilities provided in this rule are 

adequate to address any cost inequities 

that may arise. 

Finally, consistent with the proposed 

emission controls, this EIA covers 

locomotives and marine diesel engines 

and vessels sold in 50 states. 

(5) What Are the Key Model Inputs? 

Key model inputs for the EIM are the 

behavioral parameters, the market 

equilibrium quantities and prices, and 

the compliance costs estimates. 

The model’s behavioral paramaters 

are the price elasticities of supply and 

demand. These parameters reflect how 

producers and consumers of the engines 

and equipment affected by the standards 

can be expected to change their 

behavior in response to the costs 

incurred in complying with the 

standards. More specifically, the price 

elasticity of supply and demand 

(reflected in the slope of the supply and 

demand curves) measure the price 

sensitivity of consumers and producers. 

The price elasticities used in this 

analysis are summarized in V–12 and 

are described in more detail in Chapter 

7 of the RIA. 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 demand). 

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 demand). A price 

elasticity of one is unit elastic, meaning 

there is a one-to-one correspondence 

between a change in price and change 

in demand. 

TABLE V–12.—BEHAVIORAL PARAMETERS USED IN LOCO/MARINE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL

Sector Market Demand elasticity Source Supply 

elasticity Source 

Rail ............................. Rail Transportation 

Services.

¥0.5 (inelastic) ......... Literature Estimate .... 0.6 (inelastic) ............ Literature Estimate. 

Locomotives (all 

types).

Derived ...................... N/A ............................ 2.7 (elastic) ............... Calibration Method 

Estimate. 

Marine ........................ Marine Transportation 

Services.

¥0.5 (inelastic) ......... Literature Estimate .... 0.6 (inelastic) ............ Literature Estimate. 

Vessels Commercial a Derived ...................... N/A ............................ 2.3 (elastic) ............... Econometric Estimate. 

Fishing ...................... ¥1.4 (elastic) ............ Econometric Estimate 1.6 (elastic) ............... Econometric Estimate. 

Recreational .............. ¥1.4 (elastic) ............ Econometric Estimate 1.6 (elastic) ...............

Engines ..................... Derived ...................... N/A ............................ 3.8 (elastic) Econometric Estimate. 

a Commercial vessels include tug/tow/pushboats, ferries, cargo vessels, crew/supply boats, and other commercial vessels. 

Initial market equilibrium quantities 

for these markets are simulated using 

the same current year sales quantities 

used in the engineering cost analysis. 

The initial market equilibrium prices 

were derived from industry sources and 

published data and are described in 

Chapter 7 of the RIA. 

The compliance costs used to shock 

the model, to simulate the application of 

the control program, are the same as the 

engineering costs described in Section 

V.A. However, the EIM uses an earlier 

version of the engineering costs 

developed for this rule. The engineering 

costs for 2030 presented in Section V.A. 

are estimated to be $605 million, which 

is $37 million more than the compliance 

costs used in this EIA. Over the period 

from 2007 through 2040, the net present 

value of the engineering costs in Section 

V.A. is $7.2 billion while the NPV of the 

estimated social costs over that period 

based on the compliance costs used in 

his chapter is $6.9 billion (3 percent 

discount rate). The differences are 

primarily in the form of operating costs 

($22 million for the rail sector, $10 

million for the marine sector). The 

variable costs for locomotives are 

slightly smaller ($4.0 million) and for 

marine are somewhat higher ($5.0 

million). The difference for marine 

engines occurs in part because the 

engineering costs in Section V.A. 

include Tier 4 costs for recreational 

marine engines over 2,000 kW. There 

are also small differences for the 

estimated operating costs. As a result of 

these differences, the amount of the 

social costs imposed on producers and 

consumers of rail and marine 

transportation services as a result of the 

proposed program would be larger than 

estimated in this section, while the 

impacts on the prices and quantities of 

locomotives would be slightly less. In 

addition, there would be larger social 

costs for the recreational marine sector. 

Nevertheless, the estimated market 

impacts and the distribution of the 

social costs among stakeholders would 

be about the same as those presented 

below. 

There are four types of compliance 

costs associated with the program: fixed 

costs, variable costs, operating costs, 

and remanufacturing costs. The timing 

of these costs are different and, in some 

cases, overlap. 

Fixed costs are not included in the 

market analysis (they are not used to 

shock the model). However, the fixed 

costs associated with the standards are 

a cost to society (in the form of foregone 

product development) and therefore 

must be reflected in the total social costs 

as a cost to producers. In this EIA, fixed 

costs are accounted for in the year in 

which they occur and are attributed to 

the respective locomotive, marine 

engine, and vessel manufacturers. These 

manufacturers are expected to see losses 

of producer surplus as early as 2007. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16017 

148As a result, estimates for specific types of 

engines and equipment may be different than the 

reported group average. The detail results for 

markets are reported in the Appendices to Chapter 

7 of the RIA. 

Variable costs are the driver of the 

market impacts. There are no variable 

costs associated with the Tier 3 new 

engine standards because the Tier 3 

standards are engine-out emission limits 

and engine manufacturers are expected 

to comply by maximizing the emission 

reduction potential of controls they are 

already using rather than adding new 

components. The variable costs 

associated with Tier 4 begin to apply in 

2015, for locomotive PM standards; 

2016, for marine PM and NOX

standards; and 2017, for locomotive 

NOX standards. 

Operating costs are the additional 

costs for associated with urea use and 

DPF maintenance as well as additional 

fuel consumption for both Tier 4 

engines and remanufactured locomotive 

Tier 0 engines. These begin to occur 

when the standards go into effect. In the 

EIM, operating costs are attributed to 

railroads and vessel owners. On the 

marine side, all marine operating costs 

are applied to the marine transportation 

services market even though there will 

be Tier 4 engine in the recreational and 

fishing markets. This approach was 

taken because the operating costs (fuel 

and urea consumption) were estimated 

based on fuel consumption and we 

believe that most of the fuel consumed 

in the marine sector is by vessels in the 

marine transportation services sector. 

As a result of this assumption, the 

impacts on the marine transportation 

service market may be somewhat overestimated. We request comment on this 

simplifying assumption. 

Remanufacturing costs are incurred 

when locomotives are remanufactured 

(there is no corresponding 

remanufacture requirement for marine 

diesel, although we are requesting 

comment on such a program). These 

costs represent the difference between 

the cost of current remanufacture kits 

and those that will be required pursuant 

to the standards. In the EIM, these costs 

are allocated to the railroads; the 

remanufacture market is not modeled 

separately. This is appropriate because 

railroads are required to purchase these 

kits when they rebuild their 

locomotives. Their sensitivity to price 

changes is likely to be very inelastic 

because they cannot operate the relevant 

locomotives without using a certified 

remanufacture kit. This means the kit 

manufacturers would be able to pass 

most if not all of the costs of these kits 

to the railroads. We request comment on 

this approach for including 

remanufacture costs in the model. 

(6) What Are the Results of the 

Economic Impact Modeling? 

Using the model and data described 

above, we estimated the economic pacts 

of the proposed emission control 

program. The results of our analysis are 

summarized in this section. Detailed 

results for all years are included in the 

appendices to Chapter 7 of the RIA. 

Also included in Appendix 7H to that 

chapter are sensitivity analyses for 

several key inputs. 

The EIA consists of two parts: a 

market analysis and welfare analysis. 

The market analysis looks at expected 

changes in prices and quantities for 

affected products. The welfare analysis 

looks at economic impacts in terms of 

annual and present value changes in 

social costs. 

We performed a market analysis for 

all years and all engines and equipment 

types. Detailed results can be found in 

the appendices to Chapter 7 of the RIA. 

In this section we present summarized 

results for selected years. 

Due to the structure of the program 

(see section V.C.5 above), the estimated 

market and social costs impacts of the 

program in the early years are small and 

are primarily due to the locomotive 

remanufacturing program. By 2016, the 

impacts of the program are more 

significant due to the operational costs 

associated with the Tier 4 standards 

(urea usage). Consequently, a large share 

of the social costs of the program after 

the Tier 4 standards to into effect fall on 

the marine and rail transportation 

service sectors. These operational costs 

are incurred by the providers of these 

services, but they are expected to pass 

along some of these costs to their 

customers. 

(a) Market Analysis Results 

In the market analysis, we estimate 

how prices and quantities of goods 

affected by the proposed emission 

control program can be expected to 

change once the program goes into 

effect. The analysis relies on the 

baseline equilibrium prices and 

quantities for each type of equipment 

and the price elasticity of supply and 

demand. It predicts market reactions to 

the increase in production costs due to 

the new compliance costs (variable, 

operating, and remanufacturing costs). It 

should be noted that this analysis does 

not allow any other factors to vary. In 

other words, it does not consider that 

manufacturers may adjust their 

production processes or marketing 

strategies in response to the control 

program. 

A summary of the market analysis 

results is presented in Table V–13 for 

2011, 2016, and 2030. These years were 

chosen because 2011 is the first year of 

the Tier 3 standards, 2016 is when the 

Tier 4 standards begin for most engines, 

and 2030 illustrates the long-term 

impacts of the program. Results for all 

years can be found in Chapter 7 of the 

RIA. 

The estimated market impacts are 

designed to provide a broad overview of 

the expected market impacts that is 

useful when considering the impacts of 

the rule. Absolute price changes and 

relative price/quantity changes reflect 

production-weighted averages of the 

individual market-level estimates 

generated by the model for each group 

of engine/equipment markets. For 

example, the estimated marine diesel 

engine price changes are productionweighted averages of the estimated 

results for all of the marine diesel 

engine markets included in the 

group.148 The absolute change in 

quantity is the sum of the decrease in 

units produced across sub-markets 

within each engine/equipment group. 

For example, the estimated marine 

diesel engine quantity changes reflect 

the total decline in marine diesel 

engines produced. The aggregated data 

presented in Table V–13 is intended to 

provide a broad overview of the 

expected market impacts that is useful 

when considering the impacts of the 

rule on the economy as a whole and not 

the impacts on a particular engine or 

equipment category. 

Locomotive Sector Impacts. On the 

locomotive side, the proposed program 

is expected to have a negligible impact 

on locomotive prices and quantities. In 

2011, the expected impacts are mainly 

the result of the operating costs 

associated with locomotive 

remanufacturing standards. These 

standards impose an operating cost on 

railroad transportation providers and 

are expected to result in a slight 

increase in the price of locomotive 

transportation services (about 0.1 

percent, on average) and a slight 

decrease in the quantity of services 

provided (about 0.1 percent, on 

average). The locomotive 

remanufacturing program is also 

expected to have a small impact on the 

new locomotive market. The 

remanufacturing program will increase 

railroad operating costs, which expected 

to result in an increase in the price of 

transportation services. This increase 

will results in a decrease in demand for 

rail transportation services and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

149The market results for engines and vessels 

below 800 hp are provided in a Technical Support 

Document that can be found in the docket for this 

rule. 

ultimately in a decrease in the demand 

for locomotives and a decrease in their 

price. In other words, the market will 

contract slightly. We estimate a 

reduction in the price of locomotives of 

about $425, or about 0.02 percent on 

average. 

Beginning in 2016, the market 

impacts are affected by both the 

operating costs and the direct costs 

associated with the Tier 4 standards. As 

a result of both of these impacts, the 

price of a new locomotive is expected to 

increase by about 1.9 percent ($35,900), 

on average and the quantity produced is 

expected to decrease by about 0.1 

percent, on average (less than one 

locomotive). Locomotive transportation 

service prices are expected to decrease 

by about 0.1 percent). By 2030, the price 

of new locomotives is expected to 

increase by about 2.6 percent ($49,000), 

on average, and the quantity expected to 

decrease by about 0.2 percent (less than 

one locomotive). The price of rail 

transportation services is expected to 

increase by about 0.4 percent. 

Marine Sector Impacts. On the marine 

engine side, the expected impacts are 

different for engines above and below 

800 hp (600 kW). With regard to engines 

above 800 hp and the vessels that use 

them, the proposed program does not 

begin to affect market prices or 

quantities until the Tier 4 standards go 

into effect, which is in 2016 for most 

engines. For these engines, the price of 

a new engine in 2016 is expected to 

increase between 11.0 and 24.6 percent, 

on average ($17,300 for C1 engines 

above 800 hp and $64,100 for C2 

engines above 800 hp), depending on 

the type of engine, and sales are 

expected to decrease less than 2.0 

percent, on average. The price of vessels 

that use them is expected to increase 

between 1.7 and 1.0 percent ($20,900 for 

vessels that use C1 engines above 800 

hp and $188,600 for vessels that use C2 

engines above 800 hp) and sales are 

expected to decrease less than 2.0 

percent. The percent change in price in 

the marine transportation sector is 

expected to be about 0.1 percent. By 

2030, the price of these engines is 

expected to increase between 8.4 and 

18.7 percent, on average ($13,200 for C1 

engines above 800 hp and $48,700 for 

C2 engine above 800 hp), depending on 

the type of engine, and sales are 

expected to decrease by less than 2 

percent, on average. The price of vessels 

is expected to increase between 1 and 

3.6 percent ($16,200 for vessels that use 

C1 engines above 800 hp and $141,600 

for vessels that use C2 engines above 

800 hp) and sales are expected to 

decrease by less than 2 percent. The 

percent change in price in the marine 

transportation is expected to be about 

0.6 percent. 

With regard to engines below 800 hp, 

the market impacts of the program are 

expected to be negligible.149 This is 

because there are no variable costs 

associated with the standards for these 

engines. The market impacts associated 

with the program are indirect effects 

that stem from the impacts on the 

marine service markets for the larger 

engines that would be subject to direct 

compliance costs. Changes in the 

equilibrium outcomes in those marine 

service markets may lead to reductions 

for marine services in other marine 

engine and vessel markets, including 

the markets for smaller marine diesel 

engines and vessels. The result is that in 

some years there may be small declines 

in the equilibrium price in the markets 

for marine diesel engines less than 800 

hp. This would occur because an 

increase in the price and a decrease in 

the quantity of marine transportation 

services provided by vessels with 

engines above 800 hp that results in a 

change in the price of marine 

transportation services may have followon effects in other marine markets and 

lead to decreases in prices for those 

markets. For example, the large vessels 

used to provide transportation services 

are affected by the rule. Their 

compliance costs lead to a higher vessel 

price and a reduced demand for those 

vessels. This reduced demand indirectly 

affects other marine transportation 

services that support the larger vessels, 

and leads to a decrease in price for those 

markets as well. 

TABLE V–13.—ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2030 (2005$) 

Market 

Average 

variable engineering 

cost per unit 

Change in price Change in variable 

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent 

2011 

Rail Sector 

Locomotives ............................................................................................. $0 ¥$425 ¥0.02 0 ¥0.1 

Transportation Services ........................................................................... NA NAa 0.1 NAa 0.1 

Marine Sector 

Engines: 

C1>800 hp ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

C2>800 hp ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

Other marine ..................................................................................... 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

Vessels: 

C1>800 hp ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

C2>800 hp ........................................................................................ 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

Other marine ..................................................................................... 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

Transportation Services ........................................................................... NA NAa 0.00 NAa 0.0 

2016 

Rail Sector 

Locomotives ............................................................................................. 36,363 35,929 1.9 0 ¥0.1 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16019 

TABLE V–13.—ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2030 (2005$)—Continued 

Market 

Average 

variable engineering 

cost per unit 

Change in price Change in variable 

Absolute Percent Absolute Percent 

Transportation Services ........................................................................... NA NAa 0.1 NAa ¥0.1 

Marine Sector a

Engines: 

C1>800 hp ........................................................................................ 18,105 17,330 11.0 ¥7 ¥1.7 

C2>800 hp ........................................................................................ 64,735 64,073 24.6 ¥1 ¥0.9 

Other marine ..................................................................................... 0 0 0.00 0 0.0 

Vessels: 

C1>800 hp ........................................................................................ 2,980 20,898 1.5 ¥9 ¥1.7 

C2>800 hp ........................................................................................ 6,515 188,559 4.8 ¥1 ¥0.9 

Other marine ..................................................................................... 0 ¥1 0.00 ¥0 0.0 

Transportation Services ........................................................................... NA NAa 0.1 NAa ¥0.1 

2030 

Rail Sector 

Locomotives ............................................................................................. 50,291 49,087 2.6 0 ¥0.2 

Transportation Services ........................................................................... NA NAa 0.4 NAa ¥0.2 

Marine Sector 

Engines: 

C1>800 hp ........................................................................................ 13,885 13,261 8.4 ¥6 ¥1.4 

C2>800 hp ........................................................................................ 49,360 48,692 18.7 ¥1 ¥0.9 

Other marine ..................................................................................... 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Vessels: 

C1>800 hp ............................................................................................... 2,979 16,155 1.1 ¥8 ¥1.5 

C2>800 hp ............................................................................................... 6,516 141,563 3.6 ¥1 ¥0.9 

Other marine ..................................................................................... 0 ¥4 0.0 ¥2 0.0 

Transportation Services ........................................................................... NA NAa 0.6 NAa ¥0.3 

aThe prices and quantities for transportation services are normalized ($1 for 1 unit of services provided) and therefore it is not possible to estimate the absolute change price or quanitity; see 7.3.1.5. 

(b) Economic Welfare Analysis 

In the economic welfare analysis we 

look at the costs to society of the 

proposed program in terms of losses to 

key stakeholder groups that are the 

producers and consumers in the rail and 

marine markets. The estimated surplus 

losses presented below reflect all 

engineering costs associated with the 

proposed program (fixed, variable, 

operating, and remanufacturing costs). 

Detailed economic welfare results for 

the proposed program for all years are 

presented in Chapter 7 of the RIA. 

A summary of the estimated annual 

net social costs is presented in Table V–

14. This table shows that total social 

costs for each year are slightly less than 

the total engineering costs. This is 

because the total engineering costs do 

not reflect the decreased sales of 

locomotives, engines and vessels that 

are incorporated in the total social costs. 

In addition, in the early years of the 

program the estimated social costs of the 

proposed program are not expected to 

increase regularly over time. This is 

because the compliance costs for the 

locomotive remanufacture program are 

not constant over time. 

TABLE V–14.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENGINEERING AND SOCIAL COSTS, THROUGH 2040 (2005) 

Year 

Engineering costs 

Total social 

Marine oper- costs 

ating costs 

Marine engine 

and vessel 

costs 

Rail operating 

costs 

Rail remanuf. 

costs 

Rail new locomotive costs Total 

2007 ............................. $0.0 $25.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.2 $28.2 $28.2 

2008 ............................. $0.0 $25.0 $1.3 $56.7 $3.2 $86.1 $86.1 

2009 ............................. $0.0 $25.0 $1.4 $33.2 $3.2 $62.7 $62.7 

2010 ............................. $0.0 $25.0 $3.8 $51.5 $7.3 $87.5 $87.5 

2011 ............................. $0.0 $86.0 $7.9 $96.9 $10.8 $201.6 $201.5 

2012 ............................. $0.0 $41.2 $9.7 $74.3 $12.3 $137.5 $137.5 

2013 ............................. $0.0 $41.2 $12.0 $62.4 $12.3 $127.9 $127.9 

2014 ............................. $2.8 $41.2 $12.6 $40.0 $16.9 $113.5 $113.5 

2015 ............................. $5.6 $74.1 $14.9 $29.1 $48.8 $172.5 $172.5 

2016 ............................. $14.8 $48.6 $19.0 $55.5 $55.3 $193.1 $192.6 

2017 ............................. $23.9 $44.9 $32.7 $39.3 $66.5 $207.3 $206.7 

2018 ............................. $36.0 $33.9 $44.6 $41.9 $67.9 $224.3 $223.9 

2019 ............................. $48.0 $34.2 $56.5 $36.7 $61.9 $237.4 $236.9 

2020 ............................. $60.0 $34.5 $68.5 $12.9 $64.0 $239.9 $239.5 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V–14.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENGINEERING AND SOCIAL COSTS, THROUGH 2040 (2005)—Continued 

Year 

Engineering costs 

Total social 

Marine oper- costs 

ating costs 

Marine engine 

and vessel 

costs 

Rail operating 

costs 

Rail remanuf. 

costs 

Rail new locomotive costs Total 

2021 ............................. $72.0 $34.8 $80.8 $14.9 $66.2 $268.7 $268.2 

2022 ............................. $83.9 $35.1 $93.6 $37.4 $68.1 $318.1 $317.6 

2023 ............................. $95.7 $35.4 $106.7 $83.2 $69.8 $390.8 $390.2 

2024 ............................. $107.5 $35.7 $120.1 $72.0 $70.8 $406.0 $405.4 

2025 ............................. $119.1 $35.9 $133.8 $76.5 $72.5 $437.9 $437.2 

2026 ............................. $130.6 $36.2 $147.7 $63.2 $73.5 $451.2 $450.4 

2027 ............................. $141.9 $33.6 $161.5 $64.6 $74.7 $476.3 $475.5 

2028 ............................. $153.0 $33.9 $175.5 $80.3 $75.6 $518.2 $517.3 

2029 ............................. $163.3 $34.2 $189.4 $81.8 $76.3 $544.9 $544.0 

2030 ............................. $172.6 $34.5 $203.3 $81.2 $76.8 $568.3 $567.3 

2031 ............................. $181.2 $34.8 $217.1 $81.4 $77.6 $592.1 $591.1 

2032 ............................. $189.0 $35.1 $231.1 $77.2 $78.5 $610.9 $609.8 

2033 ............................. $196.4 $35.4 $244.9 $133.5 $78.9 $689.2 $688.0 

2034 ............................. $203.6 $35.7 $258.7 $142.6 $79.6 $720.1 $718.8 

2035 ............................. $210.4 $36.0 $272.4 $150.1 $79.8 $748.8 $747.4 

2036 ............................. $216.9 $36.4 $285.8 $143.2 $77.5 $759.7 $758.3 

2037 ............................. $222.7 $36.7 $299.2 $145.9 $75.8 $780.3 $778.8 

2038 ............................. $227.9 $37.0 $312.0 $148.8 $73.9 $799.6 $798.1 

2039 ............................. $232.4 $37.3 $324.4 $152.0 $71.8 $818.0 $816.4 

2040 ............................. $236.3 $37.7 $336.3 $155.0 $69.5 $834.7 $833.2 

2040 NPV at 3% a,b .................................................................................................................................................. $6,907.8 $6,896.8 

2040 NPV at 7% a,b .................................................................................................................................................. $3,107.7 $3,103.2 

2030 NPV at 3% a,b .................................................................................................................................................. $3,938.7 $3,932.6 

2030 NPV at 7% a,b .................................................................................................................................................. $2,175.5 $2,172.5 

aEPA EPA presents the present value of cost and benefits estimates using both a three percent and a seven percent social discount rate. According to OMB Circular A–4, ‘‘the 3 percent discount rate represents the ‘social rate of time preference’* * * * * [which] means the rate at 

which ‘society’ discounts future consumption flows to their present value’’; ‘‘the seven percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate 

of return to private capital in the U.S. economy ‘‘ [that] approximates the opportunity cost of capital. b Note: These NPV calculations are based on the period 2006–2040, reflecting the period when the analysis was completed. This has the consequence of discounting the current year costs, 2007, and all subsequent years are discounted by an additional year. The result is a smaller 

stream of social costs than by calculating the NPV over 2007–2040 (3% smaller for 3% NPV and 7% smaller for 7% NPV). 

Table V–15 shows how total social 

costs are expected to be shared across 

stakeholders, for selected years. 

According to these results, the rail 

sector is expected to bear most of the 

social costs of the program, ranging from 

57.3 percent in 2011 to 67.3 percent in 

2016. Producers and consumers of 

locomotive transportation services are 

expected to bear most of those social 

costs, ranging from 51.9 percent in 2011 

to 63.3 percent in 2030. As explained 

above, these results assume the railroads 

absorb all remanufacture kit compliance 

costs (the remanufacture kit 

manufacturers pass all costs of the new 

standards to the railroads). The marine 

sector is expected to bear the remaining 

social costs, ranging from 42.7 percent 

in 2011 to 32.7 percent in 2016. 

Producers of marine diesel engines are 

expected to bear more of the program 

costs in the early years (42.7 percent in 

2011), but by 2020 producers and 

consumers in the marine transportation 

services market are expected to bear a 

larger share of the social costs, 31.5 

percent. 

TABLE V–15.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2020, 2030 

[2005$, $million] 

Stakeholder group 

2011 2016 

Surplus 

change Percent Surplus change Percent 

Locomotives 

Locomotive producers ..................................................................................... ¥$11.1 5.5 ¥$13.4 7.0 

Rail transportation service providers ............................................................... ¥$47.5 23.6 ¥$52.9 27.5 

Rail transportation service consumers ............................................................ ¥$57.0 28.3 ¥$63.5 33.0 

Total locomotive sector ............................................................................ ¥$115.6 57.3 ¥$129.7 67.3 

Marine 

Marine engine producers ................................................................................. ¥$86.0 42.7 ¥$0.9 0.5 

C1 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$22.8 ........................ ¥$0.7 

C2 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$27.8 ........................ ¥$0.2 

Other marine ............................................................................................. ¥$35.4 ........................ ¥$0.0 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16021 

TABLE V–15.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2020, 2030—Continued 

[2005$, $million] 

Stakeholder group 

2011 2016 

Surplus 

change Percent Surplus change Percent 

Marine vessel producers ................................................................................. ¥$0 0.0 ¥$18.0 9.3 

C1 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$0 ........................ ¥$13.6 

C2 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$0 ........................ ¥$4.4 

Other marine ............................................................................................. ¥$0 ........................ ¥$0.0 

Recreational and fishing vessel consumers ............................................. ¥$0 0.0 ¥$9.6 5.0 

Marine transportation service providers .......................................................... ¥$0 0.0 ¥$15.6 8.1 

Marine transportation service consumers ........................................................ ¥$0 0.0 ¥$18.7 9.7 

Total marine sector ................................................................................... ¥$86.0 42.7 ¥$62.9 32.7 

Total Program .................................................................................... ¥$201.5 ........................ ¥$192.6 

Stakeholder group 

2020 2030 

Surplus 

change Percent Surplus change Percent 

Locomotives 

Locomotive producers ..................................................................................... ¥$0.7 0.3 ¥$1.8 0.3 

Rail transportation service providers ............................................................... ¥$65.8 27.5 ¥$163.2 28.8 

Rail transportation service consumers ............................................................ ¥$78.9 32.9 ¥$195.9 34.5 

Total locomotive sector ............................................................................ ¥$145.3 60.7 ¥$360.9 63.6 

Marine 

Marine engine producers ................................................................................. ¥$0.8 0.3 ¥$0.9 0.2 

C1 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$0.6 ........................ ¥$0.7 

C2 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$0.2 ........................ ¥$0.2 

Other marine ............................................................................................. ¥$0.0 ........................ ¥$0.0 

Marine vessel producers ................................................................................. ¥$10.1 4.2 ¥$8.2 1.4 

C1 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$7.8 ........................ ¥$6.4 

C2 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. ¥$2.3 ........................ ¥$1.6 

Other marine ............................................................................................. ¥$0.1 ........................ ¥$0.1 

Recreational and fishing vessel consumers ............................................. ¥$7.8 3.3 ¥$8.5 1.5 

Marine transportation service providers .......................................................... ¥$34.3 14.3 ¥$85.8 15.1 

Marine transportation service consumers ........................................................ ¥$41.2 17.2 ¥$103.0 18.2 

Total marine sector ................................................................................... ¥$94.1 39.3 ¥$206.5 36.4 

Total Program ........................................................................................... ¥$239.5 100.0 ¥$567.3 100.0 

Table V–16 provides additional detail 

about the sources of surplus changes, for 

2020 when the per unit compliance 

costs are stable. On the marine side, this 

table shows that engine and vessel 

producers are expected to pass along 

much of the engine and vessel 

compliance costs to the marine 

transportation service providers who 

purchase marine vessels. These marine 

transportation service providers, in turn, 

are expected to pass some of the costs 

to their customers. This is also expected 

to be the case in the rail sector. 

TABLE V–16.— DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED SURPLUS CHANGES BY MARKET AND STAKEHOLDER FOR 2020 

[2005$, million$] 

Total engineering costs Surplus 

change 

Marine Markets ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Engine Producers .................................................................................................................................................... $29.3 ¥$0.8 

Vessel Producers ..................................................................................................................................................... $5.2 ¥$10.1 

Engine price changes .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥$8.1 

Equipment cost changes ......................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$2.0 

Recreational and Fishing Consumers ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$7.8 

Engine price changes .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥$6.2 

Equipment cost changes ......................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$1.6 

Transportation Service Providers ............................................................................................................................ $60.0 ¥$34.3 

Increased price vessels ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$6.9 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16022 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

150Note: These NPV calculations are based on the 

period 2006–2040, reflecting the period when the 

analysis was completed. This has the consequence 

of discounting the current year costs, 2007, and all 

subsequent years are discounted by an additional 

year. The result is a smaller stream of social costs 

than by calculating the NPV over 2007–2040 (3% 

smaller for 3% NPV and 7% smaller for 7% NPV). 

151EPA has historically presented the present 

value of cost and benefits estimates using both a 3 

percent and a 7 percent social discount. The 3 

percent rate represents a demand-side approach and 

reflects the time preference of consumption (the 

rate at which society is willing to trade current 

consumption for future consumption). The 7 

percent rate is a cost-side approach and reflects the 

shadow price of capital. 

TABLE V–16.— DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED SURPLUS CHANGES BY MARKET AND STAKEHOLDER FOR 2020—Continued 

[2005$, million$] 

Total engineering costs Surplus 

change 

Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥$27.4 

Users of Transportation Service .............................................................................................................................. ........................ ¥$41.2 

Increased price vessels ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$8.2 

Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥$32.9 

Rail Markets ............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................

Locomotive Producers ............................................................................................................................................. $64.0 ¥$0.7 

Rail Service Providers ............................................................................................................................................. $81.4 ¥$65.8 

Increased price new locomotives ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥$28.8 

Remanufacturing costs ............................................................................................................................................ $9.5 ¥$8.1 

Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................ $63.6 ¥$28.9 

Users of Rail Transportation Service ...................................................................................................................... ........................ ¥$78.9 

Increased price new locomotives ............................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥$34.6 

Remanufacturing costs ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥$9.7 

Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................ ........................ ¥$34.7 

Total ......................................................................................................................................................................... $239.9 $239.6 

The present value of net social costs 

of the proposed standards through 2040, 

shown in Table V–14, is estimated to be 

$6.9 billion (2005$).150 This present 

value is calculated using a social 

discount rate of 3 percent and the 

stream of social welfare costs from 2006 

through 2040. We also performed an 

analysis using a 7 percent social 

discount rate.151 Using that discount 

rate, the present value of the net social 

costs through 2040 is estimated to be 

$3.1 billion (2005$). 

Table V–17 shows the distribution of 

total surplus losses for the program from 

2006 through 2040. This table shows 

that the rail sector is expected to bear 

about 65 percent of the total program 

social costs through 2040, and that most 

of the costs are expected to be borne by 

the rail transportation service producers 

and consumers. On the marine side, 

most of the marine sector costs are 

expected to be borne by the marine 

transportation service providers and 

consumers. This is consistent with the 

structure of the program, which leads to 

high compliance costs for those 

stakeholder groups. 

TABLE V–17.—ESTIMATED NET SOCIAL COSTS THROUGH 2040 BY STAKEHOLDER

($million, 2005$) 

Stakeholder groups 

Surplus 

change NPV 

3% 

Percent of 

total surplus 

Surplus 

change NPV 

7% 

Percent of 

total surplus 

Locomotives 

Locomotive producers ..................................................................................... $92.8 1.3% $63.5 2.0% 

Rail transportation service providers ............................................................... $1,988.8 28.8% $878.1 28.3%

Rail transportation service consumers ............................................................ $2,386.4 34.6% $1,053.7 33.9% 

Total locomotive sector ............................................................................ $4,468.1 64.8% $1,995.4 64.4% 

Marine 

Marine engine producers ................................................................................. $313.3 4.5% $242.3 7.8%

C1 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. $102.1 ........................ $73.9 

C2 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. $112.4 ........................ $84.4 

Other marine ............................................................................................. $98.7 ........................ $84.0 

Marine vessel producers ................................................................................. $143.8 2.1% $71.3 2.3% 

C1 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. $110.1 ........................ $54.3 

C2 > 800 hp .............................................................................................. $32.4 ........................ $16.5 

Other marine ............................................................................................. $1.3 ........................ $0.5 

Recreational and fishing vessel consumers ............................................. $110.0 1.6% $51.0 1.6% 

Marine transportation service providers .......................................................... $846.2 12.3% $338.2 10.9% 

Marine transportation service consumers ........................................................ $1,015.4 14.7% $405.9 13.1% 

Total marine sector ................................................................................... $2,428.7 35.2% $1,107.7 35.7% 

Total Program .................................................................................... $6,896.8 ........................ $3,103.1 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16023 

152U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 

2005. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Clean Air Interstate Rule. Prepared by: Office of Air 

and Radiation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

cair. 

153U.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. 

(7) What Are the Significant Limitations 

of the Economic Impact Analysis? 

Every economic impact analysis 

examining the market and social welfare 

impacts of a regulatory program is 

limited to some extent by limitations in 

model capabilities, deficiencies in the 

economic literatures with respect to 

estimated values of key variables 

necessary to configure the model, and 

data gaps. In this EIA, there three 

potential sources of uncertainty: (1) 

Uncertainty resulting from the way the 

EIM is designed, particularly from the 

use of a partial equilibrium model; (2) 

uncertainty resulting from the values for 

key model parameters, particularly the 

price elasticity of supply and demand; 

and (3) uncertainty resulting from the 

values for key model inputs, 

particularly baseline equilibrium price 

and quantities. 

Uncertainty associated with the 

economic impact model structure arises 

from the use of a partial equilibrium 

approach, the use of the national level 

of analysis, and the assumption of 

perfect competition. These features of 

the model mean it does not take into 

account impacts on secondary markets 

or the general economy, and it does not 

consider regional impacts. The results 

may also be biased to the extent that 

firms have some control over market 

prices, which would result in the 

modeling over-estimating the impacts 

on producers of affected goods and 

services. 

The values used for the price 

elasticities of supply and demand are 

critical parameters in the EIM. The 

values of these parameters have an 

impact on both the estimated change in 

price and quantity produced expected 

as a result of compliance with the 

proposed standards and on how the 

burden of the social costs will be shared 

among producer and consumer groups. 

In selecting the values to use in the EIM 

it is important that they reflect the 

behavioral responses of the industries 

under analysis. 

Where possible, the EIA relies on 

published price elasticities of supply 

and demand. For those cases where 

there are no published sources, we 

estimated these parameters (see 

Appendix 7F of the RIA prepared for 

this rule). The methods used for 

estimation include a production fuction 

approach using data at the industry 

level (engines and recreational vessels) 

and a calibration approach (locomotiove 

supply). These methods were chosen 

because of limitations with the available 

data, which was limited to industrylevel data. However, the use of aggregate 

industry level data may not be 

appropriate or an accurate way to 

estimate the price elasticity of supply 

compared to firm-level or plant-level 

data. This is because, at the aggregate 

industry level, the size of the data 

sample is limited to the time series of 

the available years and because 

aggregate industry data may not reveal 

each individual firm or plant 

production function (heterogeneity). 

There may be significant differences 

among the firms that may be hidden in 

the aggregate data but that may affect 

the estimated elasticity. In addition, the 

use of time series aggregate industry 

data may introduce time trend effects 

that are difficult to isolate and control. 

To address these concerns, EPA 

intends to investigate estimates for the 

price elasticity of supply for the affected 

industries for which published 

estimates are not available, using an 

alternative method and data inputs. 

This research program will use the 

cross-sectional data model at either the 

firm level or the plant level from the 

U.S. Census Bureau to estimate these 

elasticities. We plan to use the results of 

this research provided the results are 

robust and they are available in time for 

the analysis for the final rule. 

Finally, uncertainty in measurement 

of data inputs can have an impact on the 

results of the analysis. This includes 

measurement of the baseline 

equilibrium prices and quantities and 

the estimation of future year sales. In 

addition, there may be uncertainty in 

how similar engines and equipment 

were combined into smaller groups to 

facilitate the analysis. There may also be 

uncertainty in the compliance cost 

estimations. 

To explore the effects of key sources 

of uncertainty, we performed a 

sensitivity analysis in which we 

examine the results of using alternative 

values for the price elasticity of suppy 

and demand and alternative methods to 

incorporate operational costs (across a 

larger group of marine vessels). The 

results of these analyses are contained 

in Appendix 7H of the RIA prepared for 

this rule. 

Despite these uncertainties, we 

believe this economic impact analysis 

provides a reasonable estimate of the 

expected market impacts and social 

welfare costs of the proposed standards 

in future. Acknowledging benefits 

omissions and uncertainties, we present 

a best estimate of the social costs based 

on our interpretation of the best 

available scientific literature and 

methods supported by EPA’s Guidelines 

for Preparing Economic Analyses and 

the OAQPS Economic Analysis 

Resource Document. 

VI. Benefits 

A. Overview 

This section presents our analysis of 

the health and environmental benefits 

that can be expected to occur as a result 

of the proposed locomotive and marine 

engine standards throughout the period 

from initial implementation through 

2030. Nationwide, the engines that are 

subject to the proposed emission 

standards in this rule are a significant 

source of mobile source air pollution. 

The proposed standards will reduce 

exposure to NOX and direct PM 

emissions and help avoid a range of 

adverse health effects associated with 

ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels. In 

addition, the proposed standards will 

help reduce exposures to diesel PM 

exhaust, various gaseous hydrocarbons 

and air toxics. As described below, the 

reductions in ozone and PM from the 

proposed standards are expected to 

result in significant reductions in 

premature deaths and other serious 

human health effects, as well as other 

important public health and welfare 

effects. 

To estimate the net benefits of the 

proposed standards, we use the 

estimated costs presented in section V 

and sophisticated air quality and benefit 

modeling tools. The benefit modeling is 

based on peer-reviewed studies of air 

quality and health and welfare effects 

associated with improvements in air 

quality and peer-reviewed studies of the 

dollar values of those public health and 

welfare effects. These methods are 

generally consistent with benefits 

analyses performed for the recent 

analysis of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) standards and the recently 

finalized PM NAAQS analysis.152,153

They are described in detail in the RIA 

prepared for this rule. 

EPA typically quantifies PM- and 

ozone-related benefits in its regulatory 

impact analyses (RIAs) when possible. 

In the analysis of past air quality 

regulations, ozone-related benefits have 

included morbidity endpoints and 

welfare effects such as damage to 

commercial crops. EPA has not recently 

included a separate and additive 

mortality effect for ozone, independent 

of the effect associated with fine 

particulate matter. For a number of 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16024 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

reasons, including (1) advice from the 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) Health 

and Ecological Effects Subcommittee 

(HEES) that EPA consider the 

plausibility and viability of including an 

estimate of premature mortality 

associated with short-term ozone 

exposure in its benefits analyses and (2) 

conclusions regarding the scientific 

support for such relationships in EPA’s 

2006 Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 

Related Photochemical Oxidants (the 

CD), EPA is in the process of 

determining how to appropriately 

characterize ozone-related mortality 

benefits within the context of benefits 

analyses for air quality regulations. As 

part of this process, we are seeking 

advice from the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) regarding how the 

ozone-mortality literature should be 

used to quantify the reduction in 

premature mortality due to diminished 

exposure to ozone, the amount of life 

expectancy to be added and the 

monetary value of this increased life 

expectancy in the context of health 

benefits analyses associated with 

regulatory assessments. In addition, the 

Agency has sought advice on 

characterizing and communicating the 

uncertainty associated with each of 

these aspects in health benefit analyses. 

Since the NAS effort is not expected 

to conclude until 2008, the agency is 

currently deliberating how best to 

characterize ozone-related mortality 

benefits in its rulemaking analyses in 

the interim. For the analysis of the 

proposed locomotive and marine 

standards, we do not quantify an ozone 

mortality benefit. So that we do not 

provide an incomplete picture of all of 

the benefits associated with reductions 

in emissions of ozone precursors, we 

have chosen not to include an estimate 

of total ozone benefits in the proposed 

RIA. By omitting ozone benefits in this 

proposal, we acknowledge that this 

analysis underestimates the benefits 

associated with the proposed standards. 

Our analysis, however, indicates that 

the rule’s monetized PM2.5 benefits 

alone substantially exceed our estimate 

of the costs. 

The range of benefits associated with 

the proposed program are estimated 

based on the risk of several sources of 

PM-related mortality effect estimates, 

along with all other PM non-mortality 

related benefits information. These 

benefits are presented in Table VI–1. 

The benefits reflect two different 

sources of information about the impact 

of reductions in PM on reduction in the 

risk of premature death, including both 

the American Cancer Society (ACS) 

cohort study and an expert elicitation 

study conducted by EPA in 2006. In 

order to provide an indication of the 

sensitivity of the benefits estimates to 

alternative assumptions, in Chapter 6 of 

the RIA we present a variety of benefits 

estimates based on two epidemiological 

studies (including the ACS Study and 

the Six Cities Study) and the expert 

elicitation. EPA intends to ask the 

Science Advisory Board to provide 

additional advice as to which scientific 

studies should be used in future RIAs to 

estimate the benefits of reductions in 

PM. These estimates, and all monetized 

benefits presented in this section, are in 

year 2005 dollars. 

TABLE VI–1.—ESTIMATED MONETIZED PM-RELATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE

ENGINE STANDARDS

Total benefits abcd (billions 2005$) 

2020 2030 

PM mortality derived from the ACS cohort study; Morbidity functions from epidemiology literature 

Using a 3% discount rate .................................................................................... $4.4+B $12+B 

Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ........................................................... ($1.0–$10) ($2.1–$27) 

Using a 7% discount rate .................................................................................... $4.0+B $11+B 

Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ........................................................... ($1.0–$9.2) ($1.8–$25) 

PM mortality derived from lower bound and upper bound expert-based result; e Morbidity functions from epidemiology literature 

Using a 3% discount rate .................................................................................... $1.7+B ¥ $12+B $4.6+B ¥ $33+B 

Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ........................................................... ($0.2 ¥ $8.5) ¥ ($2.0 ¥ $27) ($1.0 ¥ $23) ¥ ($5.4 ¥ $72) 

Using a 7% discount rate .................................................................................... $1.6+B ¥ $11+B $4.3+B ¥ $30+B 

Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ........................................................... ($0.2 ¥ $7.8) ¥ ($1.8 ¥ $24) ($1.0 ¥ $21) ¥ ($4.9 ¥ $65) 

aBenefits include avoided cases of mortality, chronic illness, and other morbidity health endpoints. 

bPM-related mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM threshold of 10 μ/m3. There is uncertainty about which threshold to use and 

this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to Section 6.6.1.3 of the 

RIA. cFor notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a ‘‘B’’ to represent the sum of additional monetary benefits and disbenefits. A 

detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare effects is provided in VI–4. d Results reflect the use of two different discount rates: 3 and 7 percent, which are 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. eThe effect estimates of nine of the twelve experts included in the elicitation panel fall within the empirically-derived range provided by the 

ACS and Six-Cities studies. One of the experts fall below this range and two of the experts are above this range. Although the overall range 

across experts is summarized in this table, the full uncertainty in the estimates is reflected by the results for the full set of 12 experts. The twelve 

experts’ judgments as to the likely mean effect estimate are not evenly distributed across the range illustrated by arraying the highest and lowest 

expert means. Likewise the 5th and 95th percentiles for these highest and lowest judgments of the effect estimate do not imply any particular 

distribution within those bounds. The distribution of benefits estimates associated with each of the twelve expert responses can be found in Tables 6.4–3 and 6.4–4 in the RIA. 

B. Quantified Human Health and 

Environmental Effects of the Proposed 

Standards 

In this section we discuss the PM2.5

benefits of the proposed standards. We 

discuss how these benefits are 

monetized in the next section. It should 

be noted that the emission control 

scenarios used in the air quality and 

benefits modeling are slightly different 

than the emission control program being 

proposed. The differences reflect further 

refinements of the regulatory program 

since we performed the air quality 

modeling for this rule. Emissions and 

air quality modeling decisions are made 

early in the analytical process. Section 

3.6 of the RIA describes the changes in 

the inputs and resulting emission 

inventories between the preliminary 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16025 

154See the technical support document for the 

Final Clean Air Interstate Rule Air Quality 

Modeling. This document is available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0008. 

155 Information on BenMAP, including 

downloads of the software, can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ benmodels.html. 

156National Research Council (NRC). 2002. 

Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed 

Air Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. 

assumptions used for the air quality 

modeling and the final proposed 

emission control scenario. 

(1) Estimated PM Benefits 

To model the PM air quality benefits 

of this rule we used the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. 

CMAQ simulates the numerous physical 

and chemical processes involved in the 

formation, transport, and deposition of 

particulate matter. This model is 

commonly used in regional applications 

to estimate the PM reductions expected 

to occur from a given set of emissions 

controls. The meteorological data input 

into CMAQ are developed by a separate 

model, the Penn State University/ 

National Center for Atmospheric 

Research Mesoscale Model, known as 

MM5. The modeling domain covers the 

entire 48-State U.S., as modeled in the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).154 The 

grid resolution for the PM modeling 

domain was 36 x 36 km. More detailed 

information is included in the air 

quality modeling technical support 

document (TSD), which is located in the 

docket for this rule. 

The modeled ambient air quality data 

serves as an input to the Environmental 

Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program 

(BenMAP).155 BenMAP is a computer 

program developed by EPA that 

integrates a number of the modeling 

elements used in previous Regulatory 

Impact 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. 

Table VI–2 presents the estimates of 

reduced incidence of PM-related health 

effects for the years 2020 and 2030, 

which are based on the modeled air 

quality improvements between a 

baseline, pre-control scenario and a 

post-control scenario reflecting the 

proposed emission control strategy. 

Since the publication of CAIR, we 

have completed the full-scale expert 

elicitation assessing the uncertainty in 

the concentration-response function for 

PM-related premature mortality. 

Consistent with the recommendations of 

the National Research Council (NRC) 

report ‘‘Estimating the Public Health 

Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution 

Regulations,’’ 156 we are integrating the 

results of this probabilistic assessment 

into the main benefits analysis as an 

alternative to the epidemiologicallyderived range of mortality incidence 

provided by the ACS and Six-cities 

cohort studies (Pope et al., 2002 and 

Laden et al., 2006). Of the twelve 

experts included in the panel of experts, 

average premature mortality incidence 

derived from eleven of the experts are 

larger than the ACS-based estimate. One 

expert’s average effect estimate falls 

below the ACS-based estimate. Details 

on the PM-related mortality incidence 

derived from each expert are presented 

in the draft RIA. 

The use of two sources of PM 

mortality reflects two different sources 

of information about the impact of 

reductions in PM on reduction in the 

risk of premature death, including both 

the published epidemiology literature 

and an expert elicitation study 

conducted by EPA in 2006. In 2030, 

based on the estimate provided by the 

ACS study, we estimate that PM-related 

annual benefits would result in 1,500 

fewer premature fatalities. When the 

range of expert opinion is used, we 

estimate between 460 and 4,600 fewer 

premature mortalities in 2030. We also 

estimate 940 fewer cases of chronic 

bronchitis, 3,300 fewer non-fatal heart 

attacks, 1,100 fewer hospitalizations (for 

respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

combined), one million fewer days of 

restricted activity due to respiratory 

illness and approximately 170,000 fewer 

work-loss days. We also estimate 

substantial health improvements for 

children from reduced upper and lower 

respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and 

asthma attacks. These results are based 

on an assumed cutpoint in the long-term 

mortality concentration-response 

functions at 10 μg/m3, and an assumed 

cutpoint in the short-term morbidity 

concentration-response functions at 10 

μg/m3. The impact using four alternative 

cutpoints (3 μg/m3, 7.5 μg/m3, 12 μg/m3, 

and 14 μg/m3) has on PM2.5-related 

mortality incidence estimation is 

presented in Chapter 6 of the draft RIA. 

TABLE VI–2 ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN INCIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED

LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE ENGINE STANDARDS a

2020 2030 

Health effect ............................................................................................ Mean incidence reduction (5th–95th percentile) 

PM-Related Endpoints 

Premature Mortality—Derived from Epidemiology Literature b c Adult, 

age 30±Range based on ACS cohort study (Pope et al. 2002 

570 (220–920) 1,500 (590–

2,400) 

Infant, age <1 year—Woodruff et al. 1997 ............................................. 1 (1–2) 2 (1–4) 

Premature Mortality—Derived from Expert Elicitation c d Adult, age 

25±Lower and Upper Bound EE Results, Respectively.

180–1,700 (0–830)—(870–2,600) 460–4,600 

(0–2,200)–

(2,300–

6,900) 

Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) ........................................... 370 (68– 670) 940 (170–

1,700) 

Acute myocardial infarction (adults, age 18 andolder) ........................... 1,200 (640–1,700) 3,300 (1,800–

4,800) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) e .......................................... 130 (65–200) 350 (170–

510) 

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (adults, age >18)f ....................... 270 (170–380) 770 (490–

1,100) 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16026 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

157Pope, 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. 

158Woodruff, 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. 

159 Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc). 

2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the 

Concentration-Response Relationship Between 

PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Peer Review Draft. 

Prepared for: Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. August. 

TABLE VI–2 ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN INCIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED

LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE ENGINE STANDARDS a—Continued 

2020 2030 

Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) ........... 460 (270–650) 1,000 (620–

1,500) 

Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) ..................................................... 1,000 (0–2,100) 2,600 (0–

5,300) 

Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) ................................. 11,000 (5,400–17,000) 28,000 

(14,000–

43,000) 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) ................. 8,300 (2,600–14,000) 21,000 

(6,600–

35,000) 

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) ............................ 10,000 (1,100–29,000) 26,000 

(2,800–

74,000) 

Work loss days (adults, age 18–65) ....................................................... 71,000 (62,000–81,000) 170,000 

(150,000–

190,000) 

Minor restricted-activity days (adults, age 18–65) .................................. 420,000 (360,000–490,000) 1,000,000 

(850,000–

1,200,000) 

a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. PM estimates represent benefits from the proposed standards nationwide. 

bBased on application of the effect estimate derived fromthe ACS study.157 Infant premature mortality based upon studies by Woodruff, et al. 

1997.158

cPM-related mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM threshold at 10 μg/m3. There is uncertainty about which threshold to use and 

this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to Chapter 6 of the RIA. dBased on effect estimates derived from the full-scale expert elicitation assessing the uncertainty in the concentration-response function for 

PM-related premature mortality (IEc, 2006).159 The effect estimates of 11 of the 12 experts included in the elicitation panel falls estimate derived 

from the ACS study. One of the experts fall below the ACS estimate. e Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for COPD, pneumonia, and asthma. 

f Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and heart 

failure. 

C. Monetized Benefits 

Table VI–3 presents the estimated 

monetary value of reductions in the 

incidence of health and welfare effects. 

Total annual PM-related health benefits 

are estimated to be between $4.6 and 

$33 billion in 2030, using a three 

percent discount rate (or $4.3 and $30 

billion assuming a 7 percent discount 

rate). This estimate is based on the 

opinions of outside experts on PM and 

therisk of premature death, alongwith 

other non-mortality related benefits 

results. When the range of premature 

fatalities based on the ACS cohort study 

is used, we estimate the total benefits 

related to the proposed standards to be 

approximately $12 billion in 2030, 

using a three percent discount rate (or 

$11 assuming a 7 percent discount rate). 

All monetized estimates are stated in 

2005 dollars. These estimates account 

for growth in real gross domestic 

product (GDP) per capita between the 

present and the years 2020 and 2030. As 

the table indicates, total benefits are 

driven primarily by the reduction in 

premature fatalities each year, which 

accounts for well over 90 percent of 

total benefits. 

The above estimates of monetized 

benefits include only one example of 

non-health related benefits. Changes in 

the ambient level of PM2.5 are known to 

affect the level of visibility in much of 

the U.S. Individuals value visibility 

both in the places they live and work, 

in the places they travel to for 

recreational purposes, and at sites of 

unique public value, such as at National 

Parks. For the proposed standards, we 

present the recreational visibility 

benefits of improvements in visibility at 

86 Class I areas located throughout 

California, the Southwest, and the 

Southeast. These estimated benefits are 

approximately $150 million in 2020 and 

$400 million in 2030, as shown in Table 

VI–3. 

Table VI–3 also indicates with a ‘‘B’’

those additional health and 

environmental benefits of the rule that 

we were unable to quantify or monetize. 

These effects are additive to the estimate 

of total benefits, and are related to two 

primary sources. First, there are many 

human health and welfare effects 

associated with PM, ozone, and toxic air 

pollutant reductions that remain 

unquantified because of current 

limitations in the methods or available 

data. A full appreciation of the overall 

economic consequences of the proposed 

standards requires consideration of all 

benefits and costs projected to result 

from the new standards, not just those 

benefits and costs which could be 

expressed here in dollar terms. A list of 

the benefit categories that could not be 

quantified or monetized in our benefit 

estimates are provided in Table VI–4. 

Second, the CMAQ air quality model 

only captures the benefits of air quality 

improvements in the 48 states and DC; 

benefits for Alaska and Hawaii are not 

reflected in the estimate of benefits. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16027 

TABLE VI–3.—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUE IN REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS

[in millions of 2005$]a,b

2020 2030 

PM2.5-related health effect Estimated mean value of reductions (5th and 95th %ile) 

Premature mortality—Derived from Epidemiology Studiesc,d,e ............... ...................................................

Adult, age 30+—ACS study (Pope et al. 2002) ...................................... ...................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $3,900 ............................................

($500–$8,800) ...............................

$10,000 

($1,500–$24,000) 

7% discount rate ..................................................................................... $3,700 ............................................

($500–$7,900) ...............................

$9,400 

($1,300–$21,000) 

Infant Mortality,<1 year —Woodruff et al. 1997 ...................................... ...................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $8 ...................................................

($1–$18) ........................................

$17 

($3–$37) 

7% discount rate ..................................................................................... $7 ...................................................

($1–$16) ........................................

$15 

($2–$33) 

Premature mortality—Derived from Expert Elicitationc,d,e,f ..................... ...................................................

Adult, age 25+—Lower bound EE result ................................................ ...................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $1,200 ............................................

($0–$7,200) ...................................

$3,300 

($0–$20,000) 

7% discount rate ..................................................................................... $1,100 ............................................

($0–$6,500) ...................................

$3,000 

($0–$18,000 

Adult, age 25+—Upper bound EE result ................................................ ...................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $12,000 ..........................................

($1,800–$25,000) ..........................

$31,000 

($4,800–$68,000) 

7% discount rate ..................................................................................... $11,000 ..........................................

($1,600–$23,000) ..........................

$28,000 

($4,400–$62,000) 

Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ................................................. $200 ...............................................

($10–$800) ....................................

$500 

($26–$2,100) 

Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions .................................................... ........................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $123 ...............................................

($32–$270) ....................................

$330 

($80–$730) 

7% discount rate ..................................................................................... $119 ...............................................

($30–$270) ....................................

$320 

($76–$720) 

Hospital admissions for respiratory causes ............................................ $2.7 ................................................

($1.3–$4.0) ....................................

$7.2 

($3.6–$11) 

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ...................................... $7.3 ................................................

($4.6–$10) .....................................

$21 

($13–$28) 

Emergency room visits for asthma ......................................................... $0.16 ..............................................

($0.09–$0.26) ................................

$0.37 

($0.20–$0.60) 

Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) ..................................................... $0.44 ..............................................

($0–$1.2) .......................................

$1.1 

($0–$3.1) 

Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7–14) ......................................... $0.21 ..............................................

($0.07–$0.43) ................................

$0.53 

($0.18–$1.1) 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, 9–11) ......................................... $0.24 ..............................................

($0.05–$0.59) ................................

$0.62 

($0.14–$1.5) 

Asthma exacerbations ............................................................................. $0.53 ..............................................

($0.04–$2.0) ..................................

$1.4 

($0.10–$5.1) 

Work loss days ........................................................................................ $11 .................................................

($9.6–$12) .....................................

$27 

($23–$30) 

Minor restricted-activity days (MRADs) ................................................... $12 .................................................

($0.61–$25) ...................................

$29 

($1.5–$60) 

Recreational Visibility, 86 Class I areas ................................................. $150 ...............................................

(na)f ...............................................

$400 

(na) 

Monetized Total—PM-Mortality Derived from ACS Study; Morbidity 

Functions.

...................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $4.4 ................................................

($1.0–$10) .....................................

$12 Billion 

($2.1–$27) 

7% discount rate Billion ........................................................................... $4.0 Billion .....................................

($1.0–$9.2) ....................................

$11 Billion 

($1.8–$25) 

Monetized Total—PM-Mortality Derived from Expert Elicitationg; Morbidity Functions....................................................

3% discount rate ..................................................................................... $1.7–$12 Billion .............................

($0.2–$8.5)—($2.0–$27) ...............

$4.6–$33 Billion 

($1.0–$23)—($5.4–$72) 

7% discount rate ..................................................................................... $1.6–$11 Billion .............................

($0.2–$7.8)—($1.8–$24) ...............

$4.3–$30 Billion 

($1.0–$21)—($4.9–$65) 

a Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. PM benefits are nationwide. 

b Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2020 or 2030) 

cPM-related mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM threshold of 10 μ/m3. There is uncertainty about which threshold to use and 

this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate. dValuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses (EPA, 2000; OMB, 2003). 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16028 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

eThe valuation of adult premature mortality, derived either from the epidemiology literature or the expert elicitation, is not additive. Rather, the 

valuations represent a range of possible mortality benefits. fWe are unable at this time to characterize the uncertainty in the estimate of benefits of worker productivity and improvements in visibility at 

Class I areas. As such, we treat these benefits as fixed and add them to all percentiles of the health benefits distribution. g It should be noted that the effect estimates of nine of the twelve experts included in the elicitation panel falls within the scientific study-based 

range provided by Pope and Laden. One of the experts fall below this range and two of the experts are above this range. 

TABLE V1–4.—UNQUANTIFIED AND NON-MONETIZED POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE

ENGINE STANDARDS

Pollutant/effects Effects not included in analysis—changes in: 

Ozone Health a ..................... Premature mortality: short-term exposures 

Hospital admissions: respiratory 

Emergency room visits for asthma 

Minor restricted-activity days 

School loss days 

Asthma attacks 

Cardiovascular emergency room visits 

Acute respiratory symptoms 

Chronic respiratory damage 

Premature aging of the lungs 

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) d

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 (+/¥) 

PM Health b .......................... Premature mortality—short term exposures c

Low birth weight 

Pulmonary function 

Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis 

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) 

PM Welfare .......................... Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas 

Soiling and materials damage 

Damage to ecosystem functions 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) 

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 Health e ............... 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 

a In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with ozone health effects 

including increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased 

susceptibility to respiratory infection. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified 

endpoints. b 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16029 

160U.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. 

161The estimated 2030 social welfare cost of 

267.3 million is based on an earlier version of the 

engineering costs of the rule which estimated 

$568.3 million engineering costs in 2030 (see table 

5–17). The current engineering cost estimate for 

2030 is $605 million. See Section V.C.5 for an 

explanation of the difference. The estimated social 

costs of the program will be updated for the final 

rule. 

cWhile 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. d May result in benefits or disbenefits. 

e Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this rule are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act. 

D. What Are the Significant Limitations 

of the Benefit-Cost 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 RIA and its supporting 

references. Key uncertainties that have a 

bearing on the results of the benefit-cost 

analysis of the proposed standards 

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 VI–3 indicates, total benefits 

are driven primarily by the reduction in 

premature fatalities 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 recently published 

PM NAAQS RIA. Consistent with that 

analysis, we discuss the implications of 

these results in the draft RIA for the 

proposed standards. 

• 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 locomotive and 

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 (above the assumed 

threshold of 10 μg/m3). 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. 

Despite these uncertainties, we 

believe this benefit-cost analysis 

provides a conservative estimate of the 

estimated economic benefits of the 

proposed standards in future years 

because of the exclusion of potentially 

significant benefit categories. 

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). EPA has also addressed 

many of the comments made by the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 

a September 26, 2002 report on its 

review of the Agency’s methodology for 

analyzing the health benefits of 

measures taken to reduce air pollution 

in our analysis of the final PM 

NAAQS.160 The analysis of the 

proposed standards incorporates this 

most recent work to the extent possible. 

E. Benefit-Cost Analysis 

In estimating the net benefits of the 

proposed standards, the appropriate 

cost measure is ‘social costs.’ Social 

costs represent the welfare costs of a 

rule to society. These costs do not 

consider transfer payments (such as 

taxes) that are simply redistributions of 

wealth. Table VI–5 contains the 

estimates of monetized benefits and 

estimated social welfare costs for the 

proposed rule and each of the proposed 

control programs. The annual social 

welfare costs of all provisions of this 

proposed rule are described more fully 

in section V of this preamble.161

The results in Table VI–5 suggest that 

the 2020 monetized benefits of the 

proposed standards are greater than the 

expected social welfare costs. 

Specifically, the annual benefits of the 

total program would be $4.4 + B billion 

annually in 2020 using a three percent 

discount rate (or $4.2 billion assuming 

a 7 percent discount rate), compared to 

estimated social costs of approximately 

$250 million in that same year. These 

benefits are expected to increase to $12 

+ B billion annually in 2030 using a 

three percent discount rate (or $11 

billion assuming a 7 percent discount 

rate), while the social costs are 

estimated to be approximately $600 

million. Though there are a number of 

health and environmental effects 

associated with the proposed standards 

that we are unable to quantify or 

monetize (represented by ‘‘+B’’; see 

Table VI–4), the benefits of the proposed 

standards far outweigh the projected 

costs. When we examine the benefit-toVerDate Aug<31>2005 04:54 Apr 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM 03APP2

sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16030 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

162U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. 

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. 

www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/ 

Guideline.html. 

163Office of Management and Budget, The 

Executive Office of the President, 2003. Circular A–

4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars. 

cost comparison for the rule standards 

separately, we also find that the benefits 

of the specific engine standards far 

outweigh their projected costs. 

TABLE VI–5.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE

ENGINE STANDARDS

(Millions, 2005$)a

Description 2020 2030 

Estimated Social Costs b .........................................................................................................................................

Locomotive ....................................................................................................................................................... $150 $380 

Marine ............................................................................................................................................................... 100 220 

Total Social Costs ..................................................................................................................................... 250 605 

Estimated Health Benefits of the ProposedStandardscde ......................................................................................

Locomotive .......................................................................................................................................................

3 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................................. 2,300+B 4,700+B 

7 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................................. 2,100+B 4,300+B 

Marine ...............................................................................................................................................................

3 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................................. 2,100+B 7,100+B 

7 percent discount rate ............................................................................................................................. 1,900+B $6,400+B 

Total Benefits ...........................................................................................................................................................

3 percent discount rate ..................................................................................................................................... 4,400+B 12,000+B 

7 percent discount rate ..................................................................................................................................... 4,000+B 11,000+B 

Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits—Total Costs) .................................................................................................

3 percent discount rate ..................................................................................................................................... 4,150+B 11,000+B 

7 percent discount rate ..................................................................................................................................... 3,750+B 10,000+B 

aAll estimates represent annualized benefits and costs anticipated for the years 2020 and 2030. Totals 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 RIA). In Section D, however, we do 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. cAnnual 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 (U.S. EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003).162 163

dValuation 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). Note that the benefits in this table reflect PM mortality derived from the ACS (Pope et al., 2002) study. e Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits. 

Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized are listed in Table V–13. 

VII. Alternative Program Options 

The program we have described in 

this proposal represents a broad and 

comprehensive approach to reduce 

emissions from locomotive and marine 

diesel engines. As we have developed 

this proposal, we have evaluated a 

number of alternatives with regard to 

the scope and timing of the standards. 

We have also examined an alternative 

that would require emission reductions 

from a significant fraction of the existing 

marine diesel engine fleet. This section 

presents a summary of our analysis of 

these alternative control scenarios. We 

are interested in comments on all of the 

alternatives presented. For a more 

detailed description of our analysis of 

these alternatives, including a year by 

year breakout of expected costs and 

emission reductions, please refer to 

Chapter 8 of the draft RIA prepared for 

this rulemaking. 

A. Summary of Alternatives 

We have developed emission 

inventory impacts, cost estimates and 

benefit estimates for two types of 

alternatives. The first type looks at the 

impacts of varying the timing and scope 

of our proposed standards. The second 

considers a programmatic alternative 

that would set emission standards for 

existing marine diesel engines. 

(1) Alternatives Regarding Timing, 

Scope 

(a) Alternative 1: Exclusion of 

Locomotive Remanufacturing 

Alternative 1 examines the potential 

impacts of the locomotive 

remanufacturing program by excluding 

it from the analysis (see section 

III.C.(1)(a)(i) for more details on the 

remanufacturing standards). Compared 

to the primary program, this analysis 

shows that through 2040 the locomotive 

remanufacturing program by itself 

would reduce PM2.5 emissions by 65,000 

tons NPV 3% (35,000 tons NPV 7%) and 

NOX emissions by nearly 690,000 tons 

NPV 3% (400,000 tons NPV 7%) at a 

cost of $800 million NPV 3% ($530 

million NPV 7%). The monetized health 

and welfare benefits of the locomotive 

remanufacturing program in 2030 are 

$2.9 billion at a 3% discount rate (DR) 

or $2.7 at a 7% DR. While this 

alternative could have the advantage of 

enabling industry to focus its resources 

on Tier 3 and Tier 4 technology 

development, given its substantial 

benefits in the early years of the 

program which are critical for NAAQS 

achievement and maintenance, we have 

decided to retain the locomotive 

remanufacturing program in our 

proposal. 

(b) Alternative 2: Tier 4 Advanced One 

Year 

Alternative 2 considers the possibility 

of pulling ahead the Tier 4 standards by 

one year for both the locomotive and 

marine programs, while leaving the rest 

of the proposed program unchanged. 

This alternative represents a more 

environmentally protective set of 

standards, and we have given strong 

consideration to proposing it. However, 

our review of the technical challenges to 

introduce the Tier 4 program, especially 

considering the locomotive 

remanufacturing program and the Tier 3 

standards which go before it, leads us to 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16031 

conclude that introducing Tier 4 a year 

earlier is not feasible. We have included 

this alternative analysis here because of 

the strong consideration we have given 

it, and to provide commenters with an 

opportunity to comment on the timing 

of the Tier 4 standards within the 

context of the additional benefits that 

such a pull ahead could realize. Our 

analysis suggests that introducing Tier 4 

one year earlier than our proposal could 

reduce emissions by an additional 9,000 

tons of PM2.5 NPV 3% (5,000 tons NPV 

7%) and 420,000 tons of NOX NPV 3% 

(210,000 tons NPV 7%) through 2040. 

We are unable to make an accurate 

estimate of the cost for such an 

approach since we do not believe it to 

be feasible at this time. However, we 

have reported a cost in the summary 

table reflecting the same cost estimation 

method we have used for our primary 

case and have denoted unestimated 

additional costs as ‘C’. These additional 

unestimated costs would include costs 

for additional engine test cells, 

engineering staff, and engineering 

facilities necessary to introduce Tier 4 

one year earlier. While we are unable to 

conclude that this alternative is feasible 

at this time, we request comment on 

that aspect of this alternative including 

what additional costs might be incurred 

in order to have Tier 4 start one year 

earlier. 

(c) Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in 

2013 

Alternative 3 most closely reflects the 

program we described in our Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

whereby we would set new 

aftertreatment based emission standards 

as soon as possible. In this case, we 

believe the earliest that such standards 

could logically be started is in 2013 (3 

months after the introduction of 15 ppm 

ULSD in this sector). Alternative 3 

eliminates our proposed Tier 3 

standards and locomotive 

remanufacturing standards, while 

pulling the Tier 4 standards ahead to 

2013 for all portions of the Tier 4 

program. As with alternative 2, we are 

concerned that it may not be feasible to 

introduce Tier 4 technologies on 

locomotive and marine diesel engines 

earlier than the proposal specifies. 

However, eliminating the technical 

work necessary to develop the Tier 3 

and locomotive remanufacturing 

programs would certainly go a long way 

towards making such an approach 

possible. This alternative would 

actually result in substantially higher 

PM emissions than our primary case 

although it would provide additional 

reductions in NOX emissions. Through 

2040 this alternative would decrease 

PM2.5 reductions by more than 60,000 

NPV 3% tons (31,000 NPV 7%) while 

only adding approximately 180,000 

additional tons NPV 3% (100,000 NPV 

7%) of NOX reductions. As a result in 

2030 alone, this alternative realizes 

approximately $0.6 billion less at a 3% 

DR ($0.5 billion less at a 7% DR) in 

public health and welfare benefits than 

does our proposal. As was the case with 

alternative 2, we have used the same 

cost estimation approach for this 

alternative as that of our proposal, and 

have denoted the unestimated costs that 

are necessary to accelerate the 

development of Tier 4 technologies with 

a ‘C’ in the summary tables. While 

alternative 3 could have been 

considered the Agency’s leading option 

going into this rulemaking process, our 

review of the technical challenges 

necessary to introduce Tier 4 

technologies and the substantial 

additional benefits that a more 

comprehensive solution can provide has 

lead us to drop this approach in favor 

of the comprehensive proposal we have 

laid out today. 

(d) Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4 

Alternative 4 would eliminate the 

Tier 4 standards and retain the Tier 3 

and locomotive remanufacturing 

requirements. This alternative allows us 

to consider the value of combining the 

Tier 3 and locomotive remanufacturing 

standards together as one program, and 

conversely, allows us to see the 

additional benefits gained when 

combining them with the Tier 4 

standards. As a stand-alone alternative, 

the combined Tier 3 and locomotive 

remanufacturing program is very 

attractive, resulting in large emission 

reductions through 2040 of 207,000 tons 

of PM2.5 NPV 3% (94,000 NPV 7%) and 

2,910,000 tons NPV 3% (1,310,000 NPV 

7%) of NOX at an estimated cost of $950 

million NPV 3% ($650 million NPV 7%) 

through the same time period. In 2030 

alone, such a program is projected to 

realize health and welfare benefits of 

$6.2 billion at a 3% DR ($5.7 billion at 

a 7% DR). Yet, this alternative falls well 

short of the total benefits that our 

comprehensive program is expected to 

realize. Elimination of Tier 4 would 

result in the loss of 108,000 tons NPV 

3% (41,000 tons at NPV 7%) of PM2.5

reductions and almost 4,960,000 tons 

NPV 3% (1,870,000 tons at NPV 7%) of 

NOX reductions as compared to our 

proposal through 2040. Through the 

addition of the Tier 4 standards, the 

estimated health and welfare benefits 

are nearly doubled in 2030. As these 

alternatives show, each element of our 

comprehensive program: The 

locomotive remanufacturing program, 

the Tier 3 emission standards, and the 

Tier 4 emission standards, represent a 

valuable emission control program on 

its own, while the collective program 

results in the greatest emission 

reductions we believe to be possible 

giving consideration to all of the 

elements described in today’s proposal. 

(2) Standards for Engines on Existing 

Vessels 

We are also considering a fifth 

alternative that would address 

emissions from certain marine diesel 

engines installed on vessels that are 

currently in the fleet. Many of the large 

marine diesel engines installed on 

commercial vessels remain in the fleet 

in excess of 20 years and the 

contribution of these engines to air 

pollution inventories can be substantial. 

This alternative seeks to reduce these 

impacts. 

This section describes the background 

for such a program and discusses how 

it could be designed. While this is an 

alternative under active consideration, 

we are seeking further information 

about this market to develop a complete 

regulatory program. We obtained 

information from marine transportation 

stakeholders about their 

remanufacturing practices that leads us 

to believe that, for engines above 800 

hp, these practices are very similar to 

those in the rail transportation sector. 

However, the information we have 

about the structure of marine 

remanufacturing market does not 

provide a complete picture regarding 

the economic response of the market to 

such a program. Therefore, we request 

comment on the characteristics of the 

marine remanufacturing market with 

regard to its sensitivity to price changes. 

We also encourage comments on all 

aspects of the program described below, 

including the need for it and the design 

of its components. 

(a) Background 

As discussed in section III.C.(1)(b), we 

currently regulate remanufactured 

locomotive engines under section 

213(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act as new 

locomotive engines. Specifically, in our 

1998 rule we defined ‘‘new locomotive’’

and ‘‘new locomotive engine’’ to mean 

a locomotive or locomotive engine 

which has been remanufactured. 

Remanufactured was defined as 

meaning (i) to replace, or inspect and 

qualify each and every power assembly 

of a locomotive or locomotive engine, 

whether during a single maintenance 

event or cumulatively within a five-year 

period; or (ii) to upgrade a locomotive 

or locomotive engine; or (iii) to convert 

a locomotive or locomotive engine to 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16032 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

164Pursuant to 40 CFR 92.2, remanufacture means 

‘‘(1)(i) to replace, or inspect and qualify, each and 

every power assembly of a locomotive or 

locomotive engine, whether during a single 

maintenance event or cumulatively within a fiveyear period; or (ii) to upgrade a locomotive or 

locomotive engine; or (iii) to convert nally 

manufactured to use; or (iv) to install a 

remanufactured engine or a freshly manufactured 

engine into a previously used locomotive.’’

enable it to operate using a fuel other 

than it was originally manufactured to 

use; or (iv) to install a remanufactured 

engine or a freshly manufactured engine 

into a previously used locomotive. As 

we explained in that rule, any of these 

events would result in a locomotive that 

is essentially new. 

We believe a similar situation exists 

for large marine diesel engines installed 

on certain types of commercial marine 

vessels, including tugs, towboats, 

ferries, crewboats, and supply boats. 

The engines used for propulsion power 

in these vessels are often large and are 

used at high load to provide power for 

pulling or pushing barges or for 

assisting ocean-going vessels in harbor. 

These engines tend to be integral to the 

vessel and are therefore designed to last 

the life of the vessel, often 30 or more 

years. These engines are also relatively 

expensive, costing from tens of 

thousands of dollars for a small tug or 

ferry to several hundred thousand 

dollars for larger tugs, ferries, and cargo 

vessels. Because it is very difficult to 

remove the engines from these vessels 

(the engines are typically below deck 

and replacement requires cutting the 

hull or the deck), owners insist that 

these marine diesel engines last as long 

as the vessel. Therefore, these engines 

are usually characterized by an 

extremely durable engine block and 

internal parts. 

Marine propulsion engines are 

frequently remanufactured to provide 

dependable power, and it is not unusual 

for an older vessel to have its original 

propulsion engines which have been 

remanufactured. Those parts or systems 

that experience high wear rates are 

designed to be easily replaced so as to 

minimize the time that the unit is out 

of service for repair or remanufacture. 

This includes power assemblies, which 

consists of the pistons, piston rings, 

cylinder liners, fuel injectors and 

controls, fuel injection pump(s) and 

controls, and valves. The power 

assemblies can be remanufactured to 

bring them back to as-new condition or 

they can be upgraded to incorporate the 

latest design configuration for that 

engine. As part of the routine 

remanufacturing process, power 

assemblies and key engine components 

are disassembled and replaced or 

requalified (i.e. determined to be within 

original manufacturing tolerances). 

Marine engine remanufacturing 

procedures have improved to the point 

that engine performance for rebuilt 

engines is equivalent to that of new 

engines. Therefore, we believe it may be 

appropriate to consider a program that 

would set emission requirements for 

certain types of marine diesel engines 

that would apply when they are 

remanufactured. The program under 

consideration is described below. We 

request comment on whether marine 

remanufacturing processes should 

subject remanufactured engines to 

standards under the Act. We also 

request comment on any and all aspects 

of the program described below, 

including the appropriateness of 

applying such a program, the standards, 

and its certification and compliance 

procedures. 

(b) Other Marine Engine Remanufacture 

Programs 

The impact of engines on existing 

vessels on ambient air quality was 

recognized in MARPOL Annex VI. 

Although not specifically referred to as 

a remanufacturing program, Regulation 

13 contains requirements for existing 

engines by requiring that the Regulation 

13 NOX limits apply to any engine 

above 130 kW that undergoes a major 

conversion on or after January 1, 2000. 

Major conversion is defined as (i) 

replacing the engine with a new engine 

(i.e., a repower); (ii) increasing the 

maximum continuous rating of the 

engine by more than 10 percent; or (iii) 

making a substantial modification to the 

engine (i.e., a change to the engine that 

would alter its emission characteristics). 

EPA also recognized the importance 

of the inventory contribution from 

existing marine engines in our 1999 

rule, and we requested comment on 

national requirements for existing 

marine diesel engines that would be 

similar to the locomotive 

remanufacturing program.164 While we 

noted the potential advantages of such 

a program, we did not finalize a 

remanufacturing program for existing 

marine diesel engines. At the time we 

did not have a good understanding of 

the differences between the large marine 

diesel engines used on tugs, towboats, 

crew and supply boats, cargo boats, and 

ferries and the smaller engines used on 

fishing vessels and patrol boats, and the 

lack of uniformity in the 

remanufacturing practices used by 

owners of smaller engines led us to 

conclude that the industry was too 

fractured to allow a remanufactured 

engine program. However, we 

acknowledged the continuing 

importance of the contribution of 

existing marine diesel engines and 

noted in section VI of our 1999 rule 

(Areas for Future Action) that we would 

consider this issue again in the future. 

Since we finalized our 1999 rule 

many states have continued to express 

concern about emissions from existing 

marine diesel engines and the impact of 

these emissions on their ability to attain 

and maintain their air quality goals. 

More recently, these states submitted 

comments to the ANPRM and letters to 

the Agency expressing the need for 

controlling existing engines. California 

is considering a program that would 

require all existing harborcraft 

(including tug/tow, ferries, crew, 

supply, pilot, work, and other vessels) 

to repower with an engine certified to 

the then-applicable federal standards. 

They are considering effective dates 

from 2008 through 2014, depending on 

the age of an existing vessel and its size. 

Alternatively, California would allow 

vessel owners to apply a retrofit 

technology that achieves equivalent 

emission reductions, or adopt an 

alternative compliance plan. The 

requirements under consideration for 

fishing vessels would be less stringent 

and phase in from 2011 through 2018. 

We’ve also received information from 

vessel owner groups that suggests that 

the obstacles to a marine diesel engine 

remanufacturing program we noted in 

our 1999 rule may be less than critical, 

particularly for larger engines. 

Specifically, as noted above, many 

owners of large marine diesel engines 

have their engines rebuilt on a routine 

schedule and this maintenance is often 

performed by companies that also 

remanufacture locomotive engines. In 

addition, many owners of marinized 

locomotive engines use parts from the 

same remanufacturing kits that would 

apply to locomotives. Various retrofit 

programs, such as the Carl Moyer 

program in California, the TERP 

program in Texas, and EPA’s retrofit 

program, may also make it easier to 

identify and install retrofit technologies 

on existing marine engines when they 

are remanufactured. 

(c) Marine Diesel Engines To Be 

Included in the Program 

The program for remanufactured 

marine diesel engines described below 

would apply to engines above 800 hp. 

We believe this threshold is appropriate 

because discussions with various user 

groups have indicated that these engines 

are most likely to be subject to the 

regular remanufacturing events 

described above. Engines below 800 hp 

are more likely to be installed on vessels 

used in fishing or recreational 

applications. These vessels often do not 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16033 

have the intense usage as tug/tow/ 

pushboats, ferries, crew/supply vessels 

or cargo vessels. Maintenance is more 

likely to be ad hoc and performed only 

when there is a problem with the 

performance of the engine. These 

vessels are also most likely to be owner 

operated, and any maintenance that 

occurs may be performed by the owner. 

In addition, as explained elsewhere in 

this preamble, marine diesel engines 

above 800 hp are the largest contributors 

to national inventories of NOX and PM 

emissions. Many of the vessels that use 

these engines, including tugs, ferries, 

crew and supply boats and cargo 

vessels, are in direct competition with 

locomotives, providing transportation 

services for passengers or bulk goods 

and materials. 

A random sample of nearly 400 

vessels from the Inland River Record 

(2006) suggests that the average age of 

vessels in that fleet is 30 years (with 

vessels built between 1944 and 2004), 

and the average horsepower of these 

vessels is 1709 hp (with a range of 165 

to 9,180 hp). About 72 percent of the 

vessels have horsepower at or above 800 

hp, with about 75% of those being built 

after 1973. In addition, about 60 percent 

of the vessels with engines at or above 

800 hp have engines derived from 

locomotive engines. This suggests that 

there are significant emission reductions 

that may be achieved by setting 

requirements similar to the locomotive 

program for these engines. 

Although the analysis of this 

alternative includes all engines above 

800 hp, this remanufacturing program 

for marine diesel engines could further 

be limited to a subset of engines above 

800 hp, for example those manufactured 

after 1973. The locomotive 

remanufacturing program has this age 

limitation, reflecting the fact that older 

locomotives are expected to be retired 

out of the Class I line haul fleet 

relatively soon. However, this may not 

make sense in the marine sector as there 

are a lot of vessels older than 1973 in 

the fleet (about 130 in our sample of 

about 400 vessels), and they are not 

systematically retired to lower use 

applications. 

On the other hand, this option could 

be expanded to include other marine 

diesel engines including those below 

800 horsepower. We do not believe this 

expansion is appropriate, for the reasons 

outlined above (i.e., maintenance may 

be more ad hoc and performed by the 

owner/operator instead of by a 

professional remanufacturer at a 

shipyard). However, we request 

comment on this issue. 

The program described in this 

alternative could be further modified by 

specifying that all engines on a vessel 

would be considered to be subject to the 

remanufacturing requirements if the 

main propulsion engine falls under the 

scope of the program. In essence, this 

approach would treat all engines 

onboard a vessel as a system. While 

remanufacture kits may not be available 

for smaller auxiliary engines, it may be 

possible to retrofit them with emission 

controls that will achieve the 25 percent 

PM reduction. In addition, repowering 

auxiliary engines onboard these vessels 

may not be a limiting factor as these 

engines are often removed to be rebuilt 

and other engines installed in their 

place. We request comment on this 

aspect of expanding the program. 

(d) Alternative 5: Existing Engines 

Due to the impact of marine diesel 

engines on the environment, the need 

for reductions for states to achieve their 

attainment goals, and our better 

understanding of the marine 

remanufacturing sector, we are 

considering a programmatic alternative 

that would set emission requirements 

for marine diesel engines on existing 

vessels when they are remanufactured. 

The program under consideration in 

this alternative would apply to marine 

diesel engines above 800 hp. We believe 

this is a reasonable threshold because of 

the long hours of use of these engines, 

often at high load, and their long service 

lives. The program would draw on 

features of the locomotive 

remanufacturing program, in that it 

would apply when a marine diesel 

engine is remanufactured. It would also 

draw on the certification requirements 

of the urban bus retrofit program (see 58 

FR 21359 (April 21, 1993), 63 FR 14626 

(March 26, 1998), 40 CFR part 85 

subpart O), in that the standard would 

in part be a function of the emissions 

from the base engine and that the 

standard might be subject to a cost 

threshold. 

This marine engine remanufacturing 

alternative consists of a two-part 

program. In the first part, which could 

begin as early as 2008, vessel owners 

and rebuilders (also called 

remanufacturers) would be required to 

use a certified kit when the engine is 

rebuilt (or remanufactured) if such a kit 

is available. Initially, these kits would 

be expected to be locomotive kits and 

therefore applicable only to those 

engines derived from similar locomotive 

engines. Eventually, however, it is 

expected that the large engine 

manufacturers would also provide kits 

for their engines. Kit availability would 

be expected to track the relative share of 

models to the total population of 

engines, so that kits for the most 

popular engine models would be made 

available first. Because the potential for 

emission reductions are expected to be 

quite varied across the diverse range of 

existing marine diesel engines, we could 

consider setting a multi-stepped 

emission standard similar to the Urban 

Bus program. For example, the program 

could set standards based on reductions 

of 60%, 40% and 20% with a 

requirement that a rebuilder must use a 

certified kit meeting the most stringent 

of these three standards if available. If 

no kit is available meeting the 60% 

reduction, then the rebuilder can use 

one meeting the 40% reduction, and 

similarly, if no kits are available 

meeting the 40% or 60% standards, 

then the rebuilder can use a kit meeting 

the 20% reduction. In this way, engines 

which can achieve a 60% reduction are 

likely to realize that reduction because 

a kit builder will be motivated to 

develop a kit meeting the most stringent 

standard possible. We request comment 

regarding the appropriateness of such an 

approach, and were we to adopt such a 

structure, the need for greater or less 

stratification across the potential 

emission standards. 

In the second part, which could begin 

in 2013, the remanufacturer/owner of a 

marine diesel engine identified by the 

EPA as a high-sales volume engine 

model would have to meet specified 

emission requirements when the engine 

is remanufactured. Specifically, the 

remanufacturer or owner would be 

required to use a system certified to 

meet the standard; if no certified system 

is available, he or she would need to 

either retrofit an emission reduction 

technology for the engine that 

demonstrates at least a 25 percent 

reduction or repower (replace the 

engine with a new one). The mandatory 

use of an available kit is intended to 

create a market for kits to help ensure 

their development over the initial five 

years of the program. 

To ensure that the program results in 

the expected emission reductions, an 

emission threshold could be set as well 

such that the retrofit technology would 

be required to demonstrate a 25 percent 

reduction with emissions not to exceed 

0.22 g/kW-hr PM (equivalent to the new 

Tier 0/1 PM limit). We believe a 

threshold, if one is included, should 

focus on PM emissions over NOX

because PM reductions can be 

accomplished through the use of 

improved engine components, for 

example changing cylinder rings or 

liners to reduce oil consumption and 

PM emissions. We do not believe a NOX

threshold is appropriate because 

technologies to reduce NOX may not be 

as amenable to a remanufacturing kit 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16034 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

approach. However, we would welcome 

comments regarding the need for a 

threshold, and the limit at which it 

should be set, and the appropriateness 

of a NOX standard as well. 

The second part of the program is 

contingent on EPA developing a list of 

high volume marine diesel engines for 

which a remanufacture certificate must 

be available by 2013. EPA will continue 

to work with engine manufactures and 

other interested stakeholders to develop 

such a list, and seeks comment on the 

engine models that should be included. 

The goal of this list is to identify those 

engine models that occur frequently 

enough in the market to justify the 

development of a remanufacture kit; 

engine models with just a few units in 

the population may not be required to 

comply with the requirements. 

Finally, the second step of the 

program could be made subject to a 

technical review in 2011. The object of 

such a review would be for EPA to 

assess the current and future availability 

of certified kits and to determine if any 

adjustments are necessary for the 

program including the effective date of 

the mandatory repower requirement and 

whether any change in the list of highvolume engine models is warranted due 

to new information. 

With regard to technological 

feasibility, we believe engine 

manufacturers would utilize 

incremental improvements to existing 

engine components. Because such a 

remanufactured marine engine program 

would parallel our existing 

remanufactured locomotive program, we 

expect a direct transfer of emissions 

control technology from locomotives to 

marine engines for similar engines. In 

fact, in our discussions with vessel 

operators, they indicated that they are 

sometimes already using the EPAcertified lower emissions 

remanufacturing kits that are currently 

on the market to meet our locomotive 

remanufacturing program. 

Engines that do not have a locomotive 

counterpart will in many cases start at 

a cleaner baseline than locomotivebased marine engines. Therefore, the 

same total reduction that could be 

expected from the locomotive 

remanufacture kits could not be 

expected from these engines. However, 

we would expect that similar PM 

emissions control technologies would 

be used to meet the requirements of the 

program. Technologies to achieve PM 

reductions include existing low-oilconsumption piston ring-pack designs 

and existing closed crankcase systems. 

Our discussions with marine diesel 

engine manufacturers suggest 

reductions of 25 percent with emissions 

not to exceed 0.22 g/kW-hr PM are 

feasible. These technologies would 

provide significant near-term PM 

reductions. Because all of the 

aforementioned technologies to reduce 

emissions already exist or can be 

developed and introduced into the 

market within a very short time period, 

we believe some of this technology 

could be implemented on a limited 

basis as early as 2008 on 

remanufactured marine engines. We 

also believe that these technologies 

could be fully implemented in a marine 

remanufacturing program by the end of 

2012. In addition, it may be possible to 

include NOX emission control 

technologies in these kits to achieve 

greater reductions. 

To help ensure the remanufacturer’s 

solutions are reasonably priced, the 

program could set a limit on the price 

the owner/remanufacturer could be 

expected to pay for the kit, similar to the 

urban bus program. Such a limit may be 

necessary because a program that would 

require the use of a certified kit may 

provide a potential short-term 

monopoly for kit certifiers, at least until 

other kits are certified. Such a 

monopoly environment may create the 

potential for kit prices to be unrelated 

to actual kit cost. However, unlike the 

urban bus program, the diverse nature of 

marine diesel engines makes setting a 

single cost limit per engine 

unreasonable. Instead, we would look to 

develop a factor that corresponds to 

engine size, power, or emissions. For 

example, we could consider setting a 

limit based on the PM reduction (the 

cost per ton of PM reduced). We could 

consider a limit of $45,000 per ton of 

PM reduced. This cost is far below the 

monetized health and welfare benefits 

we have estimated will be realized from 

a reduction in diesel PM emissions. We 

request comment on such an approach 

for setting a reasonable cost threshold. 

As in the locomotive remanufacturing 

program, anyone could certify a 

remanufacturing kit, but only certified 

kits may be used to comply with the 

requirement. We expect this to be 

primarily engine manufacturers or 

aftermarket part manufacturers. 

However, a fleet owner with several 

vessels with the same model engine 

could choose to certify a kit, the use of 

which would then become mandatory 

for all engines of that model, unless 

another equivalent kit is also available 

for that model. In addition, certification 

could be streamlined for kit 

manufacturers. We would look to the 

Agency’s past practices with the Urban 

Bus Program and the Voluntary Retrofit 

Verification Program when designing a 

certification procedure. However, as in 

the locomotive remanufacture program, 

the certifier is deemed to be a 

‘‘manufacturer’’ subject to the emission 

standards and as such would be subject 

to all of the obligations on such an 

entity under our primary program, 

including warranty, recall, in-use 

liability, among others. With regard to 

the retrofit requirement, we request 

comment on how we could streamline 

the certification for these technologies 

such that their use will not impose a 

larger certification burden on the owner 

of the vessel. We welcome comments on 

all aspects of the implementation of this 

possible remanufacturing program. 

The costs and benefits of a program as 

outlined above are included in Table 

VII–1 and Table VII–2. We estimate that 

the compliance costs for the marine 

remanufacturing program would be 

around $10 million per year in 2030. 

Using the benefits transfer approach 

from the primary control scenario to 

estimate the benefits of these inventory 

reductions, the additional monetized 

benefits would be expected to be about 

$0.3 billion at a 3% DR ($0.3 at a 7% 

DR) in 2030. 

With regard to benefits, the 

application of locomotive 

remanufacture kits to similar marine 

diesel engines would be expected to 

result in similar reductions in PM and 

NOX emissions. In some cases, this 

could be as much as 60 percent 

reduction for PM and 25 percent 

reduction for NOX. However, because 

many marine diesel engines start at a 

cleaner baseline, we would not expect 

to accomplish the same reductions from 

all engines that would be subject to the 

program. Based on a minimal control 

case of a 25 percent PM reduction from 

existing marine diesel engines above 

800 hp, we estimate about an additional 

27,000 tons NPV 3% (16,000 tons at 

NPV 7%) of PM2.5 reductions, and an 

additional 320,000 tons NPV 3% 

(220,000 tons at NPV 7%) of NOX

reductions through 2040. 

B. Summary of Results 

A summary of the five alternatives is 

contained in Table VII–1 and Table VII–

2 below. Table VII–1 includes the 

expected emission reductions associated 

with each alternative, including: the 

estimated PM and NOX reductions 

through 2040 for each alternative 

expressed as a net present value (NPV) 

using discounting rates of 3% and 7%. 

It also includes the estimated costs 

through 2040 associated with each 

alternative again expressed at 3% NPV 

and 7% NPV. For additional 

comparison, Table VII–2 shows the PM 

and NOX inventory reductions, costs, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16035 

and benefits of each alternative 

estimated for the year 2030. 

TABLE VII–1.—SUMMARY OF INVENTORY AND COSTS AT NPV 3% AND 7% 

Alternatives Standards 

Estimated 

PM2.5 reductions 2006–

2040 NPV 3% 

(7%) 

Estimated 

NOX reductions 2006–

2040 NPV 3% 

(7%) 

Total costs 

millions 2006–

2040 NPV 3% 

(7%) a

Primary Case .................................................. • Locomotive Remanufacturing .....................

• Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................

• Tier 4 Long-term standards ........................

315,000 

(135,000) 

7,870,000 

(3,180,000) 

$7,230 

($3,230) 

Alternative 1: Exclusion of Locomotive Remanufacturing.• Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................

• Tier 4 Long-term standards .........................

250,000 

(100,000) 

7,180,000 

(2,780,000) 

$6,430 

($2,700) 

Alternative 2: Tier 4 Advanced One Year ...... • Locomotive Remanufacturing .....................

• Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................

• Tier 4 Long-term standards advanced one 

year.

324,000 

(140,000) 

8,290,000 

(3,390,000) 

$7,590+C 

($3,440)+C 

Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in 2013 ........ • Tier 4 Long-term standards only in 2013 ... 255,000 

(104,000) 

8,050,000 

(3,280,000) 

$7,410+C 

($3,220)+C 

Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4 ................. • Locomotive Remanufacturing .....................

• Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................

207,000 

(94,000) 

2,910,000 

(1,310,000) 

$950 

($650) 

Alternative 5: Inclusion of Marine Remanufacturing.• Locomotive Remanufacturing ......................

• Tier 3 Near-term program ............................

• Tier 4 Long-term standards .........................

•Addition of Marine Remanufacturing ...........

342,000 

(151,000) 

8,190,000 

(3,400,000) 

$7,650 

($3,510) 

a ‘C’ represents the additional costs necessary to accelerate the introduction of Tier 4 technologies that we are unable to estimate at this time. 

TABLE VII–2.—INVENTORY, COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR 2030 

2030 PM2.5

Emissions reductions 

(tons) 

2030 NOX

Emissions reductions 

(tons) 

2030 Total 

costs (millions) 

2030 Benefits a b (billions) 

PM2.5 only 3% 

(7%) 

Primary Case ................................................................................................... 28,000 770,000 $610 $12 ($11) 

Alternative 1: Exclusion of Locomotive Remanufacturing ............................... 25,000 740,000 $580 $8.8 ($8.0) 

Alternative 2: Tier 4 Advanced One Year ....................................................... 28,000 790,000 $620 $12 ($11) 

Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in 2013 ......................................................... 25,000 770,000 $630 $11 ($10)

Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4 .................................................................. 17,000 240,000 $22 $6.2 ($5.7) 

Alternative 5: Inclusion of Marine Remanufacturing ........................................ 29,000 770,000 $620 $12 ($11) 

a Note that the range of PM-related benefits reflects the use of an empirically-derived estimate of PM mortality benefits, based on the ACS cohort study (Pope et al., 2002). bAnnual 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 (US EPA, 2000 and OMB, 2003). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ 

Guidelines.html. 

VIII. Public Participation 

We request comment on all aspects of 

this proposal. This section describes 

how you can participate in this process. 

A. How Do I Submit Comments? 

We are opening a formal comment 

period by publishing this document. We 

will accept comments during the period 

indicated 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 identified throughout 

this proposal. 

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 VIII.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–2005–0036. 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16036 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 will hold a public hearing on 

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at the Hilton 

Seattle Airport & Conference Center, 

17620 International Boulevard, Seattle, 

WA 98188–4001, Telephone: 206–244–

4800. We will also hold a public hearing 

on Thursday, May 10, 2007 at the 

Sheraton Gateway Suites Chicago 

O’Hare, 6501 North Mannheim Road, 

Rosemont, IL 60018, Telephone: 847–

699–6300. These hearings will both start 

at 10 a.m. local time and continue until 

everyone has had a chance to speak. 

If you would like to present testimony 

at the public hearing, 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 

suggest that you bring copies of your 

statement or other material for the EPA 

panel and the audience. It would also be 

helpful if you send us a copy of your 

statement or other materials before the 

hearing. 

We will make a tentative schedule for 

the order of testimony based on the 

notifications we receive. This schedule 

will be available on the morning of the 

hearing. In addition, we will reserve a 

block of time for anyone else in the 

audience who wants to give testimony. 

We will conduct the hearing 

informally, and technical rules of 

evidence won’t apply. We will arrange 

for a written transcript of the hearing 

and keep the official record of the 

hearing open for 30 days to allow you 

to submit supplementary information. 

You may make arrangements for copies 

of the transcript directly with the court 

reporter. 

D. Comment Period 

The comment period for this rule will 

end on July 2, 2007. 

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. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

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 this action. 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 numbers 1800.04 for 

locomotives and 1684.10 for marine 

diesels. 

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 total annual burden associated 

with this proposal is about 25,209 hours 

for locomotives and 35,030 hours for 

marine diesels; $2,724,503 for 

locomotives, based on a projection of 7 

respondents; and $2,018,607 for marine 

diesels based on a projection of 13 

respondents. The estimated burden is a 

total estimate for both new and existing 

reporting requirements. Burden means 

the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install, and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating, and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and 

providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations 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, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, EPA 

has established a public docket for this 

rule, which includes this ICR, under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–

2003–0190. Submit any comments 

related to the ICR for this proposed rule 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16037 

165U.S. EPA, Assessment and Standards Division, 

Memorandum from Chester J. France to Alexander 

Cristofaro of U.S. EPA’s Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation, Locomotive and 

Marine Diesel RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis, 

September 25, 2006. 

166U.S. EPA, Summary of Small Business 

Outreach for Locomotive and Marine Diesel NPRM, 

Memorandum to Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0190 

from Bryan Manning, January 18, 2007. 

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 April 3, 2007, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by May 3, 2007. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(1) Certification 

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 action on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that meets the default definition for 

small business (based on SBA size 

standards), as described in Table IX–1; 

(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. The 

following table provides an overview of 

the primary SBA small business 

categories potentially affected by this 

regulation. 

TABLE IX–1.—PRIMARY SBA SMALL BUSINESS CATEGORIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THIS REGULATION

Industry NAICSa Codes Defined by SBA as a small business if less than or equal to: b

Locomotive: 

Manufacturers, remanufacturers and importers of locomotives and 

locomotive engines.

333618, 336510 ............................. 1,000 employees. 

Railroad owners and operators ........................................................ 482110, 482111, 482112 .............. 1,500 employees. 

500 employees. 

Engine repair and maintenance ....................................................... 488210 ........................................... $6.5 million annual sales. 

Marine: 

Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines .................................. 333618 ........................................... 1,000 employees. 

Ship and boat building; ship building and repairing ........................ 336611, 346611 ............................. 1,000 employees. 

Engine repair and maintenance ....................................................... 811310 ........................................... $6.5 million annual sales. 

Water transportation, freight and passenger ................................... 483 ................................................. 500 employees. 

Boat building (watercraft not built in shipyards and typically of the 

type suitable or intended for personal use).

336612 ........................................... 500 employees. 

Notes:

a North American Industry Classification System. 

bAccording to SBA’s regulations (13 CFR 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are 

considered ‘‘small entities’’ for RFA purposes. 

The proposed regulations would 

apply to the business sectors shown in 

Table IX–1 and not to small 

governmental jurisdictions or small 

non-profit organizations. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

(Our analysis of the impacts of the 

proposal on small entities can be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking.165) 

We have determined that about six 

small entities representing less than one 

percent of the total number of 

companies affected will have an 

estimated impact exceeding one percent 

of their annual sales revenues. About 

four of these small companies will have 

an estimated impact exceeding three 

percent of their annual sales revenues. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities, as 

described in section IX.C.(2) below. 

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. 

(2) Outreach Efforts and Special 

Compliance Provisions for Small 

Entities 

We sought the input of a number of 

small entities, which would be affected 

by the proposed rule, on potential 

regulatory flexibility provisions and the 

needs of small businesses. For marine 

diesel engine manufacturers, we had 

separate meetings with the four small 

companies in this sector, which are 

post-manufacture marinizers 

(companies that purchase a complete or 

semi-complete engine from an engine 

manufacturer and modify it for use in 

the marine environment by changing the 

engine in ways that may affect 

emissions). We also met individually 

with one small commercial vessel 

builder and a few vessel trade 

associations whose members include 

small vessel builders. For locomotive 

manufacturers and remanufacturers, we 

met separately with the three small 

businesses in these sectors, which are 

remanufacturers. In addition, we met 

with a railroad trade association whose 

members include small railroads. For 

nearly all meetings, EPA provided each 

small business with an outreach packet 

that included background information 

on this proposed rulemaking; and a 

document outlining some flexibility 

provisions for small businesses that we 

have implemented in past rulemakings. 

(This outreach packet and a complete 

summary of our discussions with small 

entities can be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking.)166


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16038 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

The primary feedback we received 

from small entities was to continue the 

flexibility provisions that we have 

provided to small entities in earlier 

locomotive and marine diesel 

rulemakings; and a number of these 

provisions are listed below. Therefore, 

we propose to largely continue the 

existing flexibility provisions finalized 

in the 1998 Locomotive and Locomotive 

Engines Rule (April 16,1998; 63 FR 

18977); our 1999 Commercial Marine 

Diesel Engines Rule (December 29,1999; 

64 FR 73299) and our 2002 Recreational 

Diesel Marine program (November 8, 

2002; 67 FR 68304). For a complete 

description of the flexibilities be 

proposed in this notice, please refer to 

the Certification and Compliance 

Program, section IV.A.(14)—Small 

Business Provisions. 

(a) Transition Flexibilities 

(i) Locomotive Sector 

• Small locomotive remanufacturers 

would be granted a waiver from 

production-line and in-use testing for 

up to five calendar years after this 

proposed program becomes effective. 

• Railroads qualifying as small 

businesses would be exempt from new 

Tier 0, 1, and 2 remanufacturing 

requirements for locomotives in their 

existing fleets. 

• Railroads qualifying as small 

businesses would continue being 

exempt from the in-use testing program. 

(ii) Marine Sector 

• Post-manufacture marinizers and 

small-volume manufacturers (annual 

worldwide production of fewer than 

1,000 engines) would be allowed to 

group all engines into one engine family 

based on the worst-case emitter. 

• Small-volume manufacturers 

producing engines less than or equal to 

800 hp (600 kW) would be exempted 

from production-line and deterioration 

testing (assigned deterioration factors) 

for Tier 3 standards. 

• Post-manufacture marinizers 

qualifying as small businesses and 

producing engines less than or equal to 

800 hp (600 kW) would be permitted to 

delay compliance with the Tier 3 

standards by one model year. 

• Post-manufacture marinizers 

qualifying as small businesses and 

producing engines less than or equal to 

800 hp (600 kW) could delay 

compliance with the Not-to-Exceed 

requirements for Tier 3 standards by up 

to three model years. 

• Marine engine dressers (modify 

base engine without affecting the 

emission characteristics of the engine) 

would be exempted from certification 

and compliance requirements. 

• Post-manufacture marinizers, smallvolume manufacturers, and smallvolume boat builders (less than 500 

employees and annual worldwide 

production of fewer than 100 boats) 

would have hardship relief provisions—

i.e., apply for additional time. 

EPA invites comments on all aspects 

of the proposal and its impacts on the 

regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

This rule contains no federal 

mandates for state, local, or tribal 

governments as defined by the 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The 

rule imposes no enforceable duties on 

any of these governmental entities. 

Nothing in the rule would significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains federal mandates that may 

result in expenditures of more than 

$100 million to the private sector in any 

single year. Accordingly, EPA has 

evaluated under section 202 of the 

UMRA the potential impacts to the 

private sector. EPA believes that the 

proposal represents the least costly, 

most cost-effective approach to achieve 

the statutory requirements of the rule. 

The costs and benefits associated with 

the proposal are included in the Draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, as required 

by the UMRA. EPA has determined that 

this rule 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. 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) 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16039 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. The rule will 

be implemented at the Federal level and 

impose compliance costs only on 

manufacturers of locomotives, 

locomotive engines, 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 rule. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health risks or safety 

risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

Nonetheless, we have evaluated the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

emissions from locomotive and marine 

diesels on children. The results of this 

evaluation are contained in the draft 

RIA for this proposed rule, which has 

been placed in the public docket under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–

2003–0190. 

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 rule. 

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 Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, for certain actions identified as 

‘‘significant energy actions.’’ This 

proposed rule’s potential effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use have 

been analyzed and are discussed in 

detail in section 5.9 of the draft RIA. In 

summary, while we project that this 

proposed rule would result in an energy 

effect that exceeds the 4,000 barrel per 

day threshold noted in E.O. 13211 in or 

around the year 2026 and thereafter, the 

program consists of performance based 

standards with averaging, banking, and 

trading provisions that make it likely 

that our estimated impact is overstated. 

Further, the fuel consumption estimates 

upon which we are basing this energy 

effect analysis, which are discussed in 

full in section 5.4.3 of the draft RIA, do 

not reflect the potential fuel savings 

associated with automatic engine stop/ 

start (AESS) systems or other idle 

reduction technologies. Such 

technologies can provide significant fuel 

savings which could offset our projected 

estimates of increased fuel 

consumption. Nonetheless, our 

projections show that the proposed rule 

could result in energy usage exceeding 

the 4,000 barrel per day threshold noted 

in E.O. 13211. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

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 (ISO) 

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 transient emission 

measurements, measuring PM emissions 

at very low levels, 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. 

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for the controls 

proposed in today’s document can be 

found in sections 213 (which 

specifically authorizes controls on 

emissions from nonroad engines and 

vehicles), 203–209, 216, and 301 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7547, 

7522, 7523, 7424, 7525, 7541, 7542, 

7543, 7550, and 7601. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 92 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Railroads, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Warranties. 

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 1033 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, 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, Vessels, Railroads, Reporting 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16040 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 1065 

Confidential business information, 

Penalties, Research, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 1068 

Confidential business information, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 92—CONTROL OF AIR 

POLLUTION FROM LOCOMOTIVES 

AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES 

1. The authority citation for part 92 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q. 

2. Section 92.1 is amended by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text and 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 92.1 Applicability. 

(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b), 

(d) and (e) of this section, the provisions 

of this part apply to manufacturers, 

remanufacturers, owners and operators 

of: 

* * * * * 

(e) The provisions of this part do not 

apply for locomotives that are subject to 

the emissions standards of 40 CFR part 

1033. 

3. Section 92.12 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 92.12 Interim provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Production line and in-use testing. 

(1) The requirements of Subpart F of 

this part (i.e., production line testing) do 

not apply prior to January 1, 2002. 

(2) The requirements of Subpart F of 

this part (i.e., production line testing) do 

not apply to small remanufacturers prior 

to January 1, 2013. 

(3) The requirements of Subpart G of 

this part (i.e., in-use testing) only apply 

for locomotives and locomotive engines 

that become new on or after January 1, 

2002. 

(4) For locomotives and locomotive 

engines that are covered by a small 

business certificate of conformity, the 

requirements of Subpart G of this part 

(i.e., in-use testing) only apply for 

locomotives and locomotive engines 

that become new on or after January 1, 

2007. We will also not require small 

remanufacturers to perform any in-use 

testing prior to January 1, 2013. 

* * * * * 

(i) Diesel test fuels. Manufacturers and 

remanufacturers may use LSD or ULSD 

test fuel to certify to the standards of 

this part, instead of the otherwise 

specified test fuel, provided PM 

emissions are corrected as described in 

this paragraph (i). Measure your PM 

emissions and determine your cycleweighted emission rates as specified in 

subpart B of this part. If you test using 

LSD or ULSD, add 0.07 g/bhp-hr to 

these weighted emission rates to 

determine your official emission result. 

(j) Subchapter U provisions. For 

model years 2008 through 2012, certain 

locomotives will be subject to the 

requirements of this part 92 while 

others will be subject to the 

requirements of 40 CFR subchapter U. 

This paragraph (j) describes allowances 

for manufacturers or remanufacturers to 

ask for flexibility in transitioning to the 

new regulations. 

(1) You may ask to use a combination 

of the test procedures of this part and 

those of 40 CFR part 1033. We will 

approve your request only if you show 

us that it does not affect your ability to 

show compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. Generally this 

requires that the combined procedures 

would result in emission measurements 

at least as high as those that would be 

measured using the procedures 

specified in this part. Alternatively, you 

may demonstrate that the combined 

effects of the procedures is small 

relative to your compliance margin (the 

degree to which your locomotives are 

below the applicable standards). 

(2) You may ask to comply with the 

administrative requirements of 40 CFR 

part 1033 and 1068 instead of the 

equivalent requirements of this part. 

4. Section 92.208 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 92.208 Certification. 

(a) This paragraph (a) applies to 

manufacturers of new locomotives and 

new locomotive engines. If, after a 

review of the application for 

certification, test reports and data 

acquired from a freshly manufactured 

locomotive or locomotive engine or 

from a development data engine, and 

any other information required or 

obtained by EPA, the Administrator 

determines that the application is 

complete and that the engine family 

meets the requirements of the Act and 

this part, he/she will issue a certificate 

of conformity with respect to such 

engine family except as provided by 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The 

certificate of conformity is valid for each 

engine family starting with the 

indicated effective date, but it is not 

valid for any production after December 

31 of the model year for which it is 

issued (except as specified in § 92.12). 

The certificate of conformity is valid 

upon such terms and conditions as the 

Administrator deems necessary or 

appropriate to ensure that the 

production engines covered by the 

certificate will meet the requirements of 

the Act and of this part. 

* * * * * 

PART 94—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM MARINE COMPRESSIONIGNITION ENGINES 

5. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q. 

6. Section 94.1 is amended by adding 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 94.1 Applicability. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Marine engines subject to the 

standards of 40 CFR part 1042. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 94.2, paragraph (b) is amended 

by adding definitions for ‘‘Nonroad’’

and ‘‘Nonroad engine’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 94.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Nonroad means relating to nonroad 

engines, or vessels, or equipment that 

includes nonroad engines. 

Nonroad engine has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1068.30. In general, this 

means all internal-combustion engines 

except motor vehicle engines, stationary 

engines, engines used solely for 

competition, or engines used in aircraft. 

* * * * * 

8. Section 94.12 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 94.12 Interim provisions. 

* * * * * 

(i) Subchapter U provisions. For 

model years 2009 through 2013, certain 

marine engines will be subject to the 

requirements of this part 94 while 

others will be subject to the 

requirements of 40 CFR subchapter U. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16041 

This paragraph (j) describes allowances 

for manufacturers to ask for flexibility in 

transitioning to the new regulations. 

(1) You may ask to use a combination 

of the test procedures of this part and 

those of 40 CFR part 1033. We will 

approve your request only if you show 

us that it does not affect your ability to 

show compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. Generally this 

requires that the combined procedures 

would result in emission measurements 

at least as high as those that would be 

measured using the procedures 

specified in this part. Alternatively, you 

may demonstrate that the combined 

effects of the procedures is small 

relative to your compliance margin (the 

degree to which your locomotive are 

below the applicable standards). 

(2) You may ask to comply with the 

administrative requirements of 40 CFR 

part 1033 and 1068 instead of the 

equivalent requirements of this part. 

9. Section 94.108 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 94.108 Test fuels. 

* * * * * 

(d) Correction for sulfur. (1) High 

sulfur fuel. (i) Particulate emission 

measurements from Category 1 or 

Category 2 engines without exhaust 

aftertreatment obtained using a diesel 

fuel containing more than 0.40 weight 

percent sulfur may be adjusted to a 

sulfur content of 0.40 weight percent. 

(ii) Adjustments to the particulate 

measurement for using high sulfur fuel 

shall be made using the following 

equation: 

PMadj = PM¥[BSFC *0.0917 *(FSF–

0.0040)] 

Where: 

PMadj = Adjusted measured PM level [g/kWhr]. 

PM = Measured weighted PM level [g/KWhr]. 

BSFC = Measured brake specific fuel 

consumption [g/KW-hr]. 

FSF = Fuel sulfur weight fraction. 

(2) Low sulfur fuel. (i) Particulate 

emission measurements from Category 1 

or Category 2 engines without exhaust 

aftertreatment obtained using diesel fuel 

containing less than 0.03 weight percent 

sulfur may be adjusted to a sulfur 

content of 0.20 weight percent. 

(ii) Adjustments to the particulate 

measurement for using ultra low sulfur 

fuel shall be made using the following 

equation: 

PMadj = PM+[BSFC *0.0917 

*(0.0020¥FSF)] 

Where: 

PMadj = Adjusted measured PM level [g/ 

kW-hr]. 

PM = Measured weighted PM level [g/KWhr]. 

BSFC = Measured brake specific fuel 

consumption [g/KW-hr]. 

FSF = Fuel sulfur weight fraction. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 94.208 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 94.208 Certification. 

(a) If, after a review of the application 

for certification, test reports and data 

acquired from an engine or from a 

development data engine, and any other 

information required or obtained by 

EPA, the Administrator determines that 

the application is complete and that the 

engine family meets the requirements of 

the Act and this part, he/she will issue 

a certificate of conformity with respect 

to such engine family, except as 

provided by paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. The certificate of conformity is 

valid for each engine family starting 

with the indicated effective date, but it 

is not valid for any production after 

December 31 of the model year for 

which it is issued. The certificate of 

conformity is valid upon such terms and 

conditions as the Administrator deems 

necessary or appropriate to ensure that 

the production engines covered by the 

certificate will meet the requirements of 

the Act and of this part. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 94.209 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 94.209 Special provisions for postmanufacture marinizers and small-volume 

manufacturers. 

* * * * * 

(a) Broader engine families. Instead of 

the requirements of § 94.204, an engine 

family may consist of any engines all of 

a manufacturers engines within a given 

category. This does not change any of 

the requirements of this part for 

showing that an engine family meets 

emission standards. To be eligible to use 

the provisions of this paragraph (a), the 

manufacturer must demonstrate one of 

the following: 

* * * * * 

12. A new part 1033 is added to 

subchapter U of chapter I to read as 

follows: 

PART 1033—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM LOCOMOTIVES 

Sec. 

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability 

1033.1 Applicability 

1033.5 Exemptions and exclusions. 

1033.10 Organization of this part. 

1033.15 Do any other regulation parts apply 

to me? 

Subpart B—Emission Standards and 

Related Requirements 

1033.101 Exhaust emission standards. 

1033.102 Transition to the standards of this 

part for model years before 2015. 

1033.110 Emission diagnostics—general 

requirements. 

1033.112 Emission diagnostics for SCR 

systems. 

1033.115 Other requirements. 

1033.120 Emission-related warranty 

requirements. 

1033.125 Maintenance instructions. 

1033.130 Instructions for engine 

remanufacturing or engine installation. 

1033.135 Labeling. 

1033.140 Rated power. 

1033.150 Interim provisions. 

Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families 

1033.201 General requirements for 

obtaining a certificate of conformity. 

1033.205 Applying for a certificate of 

conformity. 

1033.210 Preliminary approval. 

1033.220 Amending maintenance 

instructions. 

1033.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

1033.230 Grouping locomotives into engine 

families. 

1033.235 Emission testing required for 

certification. 

1033.240 Demonstrating compliance with 

exhaust emission standards. 

1033.245 Deterioration factors. 

1033.250 Reports and recordkeeping. 

1033.255 EPA decisions. 

Subpart D—Manufacturer and 

Remanufacturer Production Line Testing 

and Audit Programs 

1033.301 Applicability. 

1033.305 General Requirements 

1033.310 Sample selection for testing. 

1033.315 Test procedures. 

1033.325 Calculation and reporting of test 

results. 

1033.330 Maintenance of records; submittal 

of information. 

1033.335 Compliance with criteria for 

production line testing. 

1033.340 Remanufactured locomotives: 

installation audit requirements. 

1033.345 Suspension and revocation of 

certificates of conformity. 

Subpart E—In-use Testing 

1033.401 Applicability. 

1033.405 General provisions. 

1033.410 In-use test procedure. 

1033.415 General testing requirements. 

1033.420 Maintenance, procurement and 

testing of in-use locomotives. 

1033.425 In-use test program reporting 

requirements. 

Subpart F—Test Procedures 

1033.501 General test provisions. 

1033.503 Test conditions. 

1033.505 Locomotive and engine testing. 

1033.510 Ramped modal testing. 

1033.520 Duty cycles and idle calculation. 

1033.525 Adjusting emission levels to 

account for infrequently regenerating 

aftertreatment devices. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16042 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions 

1033.601 General compliance provisions. 

1033.610 Small railroad provisions. 

1033.615 Voluntarily subjecting 

locomotives to the standards of this part. 

1033.620 Hardship provisions for 

manufacturers and remanufacturers. 

1033.625 Design certification for nonlocomotive-specific engines. 

1033.630 Staged-assembly exemption. 

1033.640 Provisions for repowered and 

refurbished locomotives. 

1033.650 Incidental use exemption for 

Canadian and Mexican locomotives. 

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and 

Trading for Certification. 

1033.701 General provisions. 

1033.705 Calculate emission credits. 

1033.710 Averaging emission credits. 

1033.715 Banking emission credits. 

1033.720 Trading emission credits. 

1033.722 Transferring emission credits. 

1033.725 Requirements for your application 

for certification. 

1033.730 ABT reports. 

1033.735 Required records. 

1033.740 Credit restrictions. 

1033.745 Compliance with the provisions 

of this subpart. 

1033.750 Changing a locomotive’s FEL at 

remanufacture. 

Subpart I—Requirements for Owners and 

Operators 

1033.801 Applicability. 

1033.805 Remanufacturing requirements. 

1033.810 In-use testing program. 

1033.815 Maintenance, operation, and 

repair. 

1033.820 In-use locomotives. 

1033.825 Refueling requirements. 

Subpart J—Definitions and Other Reference 

Information 

1033.901 Definitions. 

1033.905 Symbols, acronyms, and 

abbreviations. 

1033.920 How to request a hearing. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability 

§ 1033.1 Applicability. 

The regulations in this part 1033 

apply for all new locomotives and all 

locomotives containing a new 

locomotive engine, except as provided 

in § 1033.5. 

(a) Standards begin to apply each time 

a locomotive or locomotive engine is 

originally manufactured or otherwise 

becomes new (defined in § 1033.901). 

The requirements of this part continue 

to apply as specified after locomotives 

cease to be new. 

(b) Standards apply to the locomotive. 

However, in certain cases, the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer is allowed 

to test a locomotive engine instead of a 

complete locomotive, such as for 

certification. 

(c) Standards apply based on the year 

in which the locomotive was originally 

manufactured. The date of original 

manufacture is generally the date on 

which assembly is completed for the 

first time. For example, all locomotives 

originally manufactured in calendar 

years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are subject 

to the Tier 1 emission standards for 

their entire service lives. 

(d) The following provisions apply 

when there are multiple persons 

meeting the definition of manufacturer 

or remanufacturer: 

(1) Each person meeting the definition 

of manufacturer must comply with the 

requirements of this part that apply to 

manufacturers; and each person meeting 

the definition of remanufacturer must 

comply with the requirements of this 

part that apply to remanufacturers. 

However, if one person complies with a 

specific requirement for a given 

locomotive, then all manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers are be deemed to have 

complied with that specific 

requirement. 

(2) We will apply the requirements of 

subparts C, D, and E of this part to the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer that 

obtains the certificate of conformity. 

Other manufacturers and 

remanufacturers are required to comply 

with the requirements of subparts C, D, 

and E of this part only when notified by 

us. In our notification, we will specify 

a reasonable time period in which you 

need to comply with the requirements 

identified in the notice. See § 1033.601 

for the applicability of 40 CFR part 1068 

to these other manufacturers and 

remanufacturers. 

(3) For example, we may require a 

railroad that installs certified kits but 

does not hold the certificate to perform 

production line testing or auditing of 

the locomotives that it remanufactures. 

However, if we did, we would allow the 

railroad a reasonable amount of time to 

develop the ability to perform such 

testing or auditing. 

(e) The provisions of this part apply 

as specified for locomotives 

manufactured or remanufactured on or 

after January 1, 2008. See § 1033.102 to 

determine the whether the standards of 

this part or the standards of 40 CFR part 

92 apply for model years 2008 through 

2012. For example, for a locomotive that 

was originally manufactured in 2007 

and remanufactured on April 10, 2014, 

the provisions of this part begin to apply 

on April 10, 2014. 

§ 1033.5 Exemptions and exclusions. 

(a) Subpart G of this part exempts 

certain locomotives from the standards 

of this part. 

(b) The definition of ‘‘locomotive’’ in 

§ 1033.901 excludes certain vehicles. In 

general, the engines used in such 

excluded equipment are subject to 

standards under other regulatory parts. 

For example, see 40 CFR part 1039 for 

requirements that apply to diesel 

engines used in equipment excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘locomotive’’ in 

§ 1033.901. The following locomotives 

are also excluded from the provisions of 

this part 1033: 

(1) Historic locomotives powered by 

steam engines. To be excluded under 

this paragraph (b)(1), a locomotive may 

not use any internal combustion engines 

and must be used only for historical 

purposes such as at a museum or similar 

public attraction. 

(2) Locomotives powered only by an 

external source of electricity. 

(c) The provisions of this part do not 

apply for any locomotive that has not 

become a ‘‘new locomotive’’ (as defined 

in § 1033.901) after December 31, 2007. 

§ 1033.10 Organization of this part. 

The regulations in this part 1033 

contain provisions that affect 

locomotive manufacturers, 

remanufacturers, and others. However, 

the requirements of this part are 

generally addressed to the locomotive 

manufacturer/remanufacturer. The term 

‘‘you’’ generally means the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer, as 

defined in § 1033.901. This part 1033 is 

divided into the following subparts: 

(a) Subpart A of this part defines the 

applicability of part 1033 and gives an 

overview of regulatory requirements. 

(b) Subpart B of this part describes the 

emission standards and other 

requirements that must be met to certify 

locomotives under this part. Note that 

§ 1033.150 discusses certain interim 

requirements and compliance 

provisions that apply only for a limited 

time. 

(c) Subpart C of this part describes 

how to apply for a certificate of 

conformity. 

(d) Subpart D of this part describes 

general provisions for testing and 

auditing production locomotives. 

(e) Subpart E of this part describes 

general provisions for testing in-use 

locomotives. 

(f) Subpart F of this part 40 CFR part 

1065 describe how to test your 

locomotives. 

(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR 

part 1068 describe requirements, 

prohibitions, exemptions, and other 

provisions that apply to locomotive 

manufacturer/remanufacturers, owners, 

operators, and all others. 

(h) Subpart H of this part describes 

how you may generate and use emission 

credits to certify your locomotives. 

(i) Subpart I of this part describes 

provisions for locomotive owners and 

operators. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16043 

(j) Subpart J of this part contains 

definitions and other reference 

information. 

§ 1033.15 Do any other regulation parts 

apply to me? 

(a) Part 1065 of this chapter describes 

procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing engines. 

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 

emission standards in this part. 

(b) The requirements and prohibitions 

of part 1068 of this chapter apply to 

everyone, including anyone who 

manufactures, remanufactures, imports, 

maintains, owns, or operates any of the 

locomotives subject to this part 1033. 

See § 1033.601 to determine how to 

apply the part 1068 regulations for 

locomotives. Part 1068 of this chapter 

describes general provisions, including 

these seven areas: 

(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for 

locomotive manufacturer/ 

remanufacturers and others. 

(2) Exclusions and exemptions for 

certain locomotives. 

(3) Importing locomotives. 

(4) Selective enforcement audits of 

your production. 

(5) Defect reporting and recall. 

(6) Procedures for hearings. 

(c) Other parts of this chapter apply 

if referenced in this part. 

Subpart B—Emission Standards and 

Related Requirements 

§ 1033.101 Exhaust emission standards. 

See §§ 1033.102 and 1033.150 to 

determine the model years for which 

emission standards of this section apply 

before 2015. 

(a) Emission standards for line-haul 

locomotives. Exhaust emissions from 

your new locomotives may not exceed 

the applicable emission standards in 

Table 1 of this section during the useful 

life of the locomotive. (Note: § 1033.901 

defines locomotives to be ‘‘new’’ when 

originally manufactured and when 

remanufactured.) Measure emissions 

using the applicable test procedures 

described in subpart F of this part. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.101.—LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

Year of original manufacture Tier of standards 

Standards (g/bhp-hr) 

NOX PM HC CO 

1973–1992 f .............................................................. Tier 0 a ...................................................................... 8.0 0.22 1.00 5.0 

1993 f–2004 .............................................................. Tier 1 a ...................................................................... 7.4 0.22 0.55 2.2 

2005–2011 ................................................................ Tier 2 a ...................................................................... 5.5 0.10 d 0.30 1.5 

2012–2014 ................................................................ Tier 3 b ...................................................................... 5.5 0.10 0.30 1.5 

2015 or later ............................................................. Tier 4 ........................................................................ 1.3 c 0.03 0.14 e 1.5 

a Line-haul locomotives subject to the Tier 0 through Tier 2 emission standards must also meet switch standards of the same tier.

bTier 3 line-haul locomotives must also meet Tier 2 switch standards. 

c Model year 2015 and 2016 Tier 4 line-haul locomotives are subject to the Tier 3 NOX standard at the time of initial manufacture (instead of 

the Tier 4 NOX standard), but must meet the Tier 4 NOX standard at the time of any remanufacture after January 1, 2017. dThe PM standard for new Tier 2 line-haul locomotives is 0.20 g/bhp-hr until January 1, 2013. 

e Manufacturers may elect to meet a combined NOX+HC standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr instead of the otherwise applicable Tier 4 NOX and HC 

standards, as described in paragraph (j) of this section. For model years, 2015 and 2016, manufacturers may elect to meet a combined NOX+HC 

standard of 5.5 g/bhp-hr instead of the otherwise applicable NOX and HC standards. f Locomotive models that were originally manufactured in model years 1993 through 2001, but that were not originally equipped with a separate coolant system for intake air are subject to the Tier 0 rather than the Tier 1 standards. 

(b) Emission standards for switch 

locomotives. Exhaust emissions from 

your new locomotives may not exceed 

the applicable emission standards in 

Table 2 of this section during the useful 

life of the locomotive. 

(Note: § 1033.901 defines locomotives to be 

‘‘new’’ when originally manufactured and 

when remanufactured.) Measure emissions 

using the applicable test procedures 

described in subpart F of this part. 

TABLE 2 OF § 1033.101.—SWITCH LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

Year of original manufacture Tier of standards 

Standards (g/bhp-hr) 

NOX PM HC CO 

1973–2001 ................................................................ Tier 0 ........................................................................ 11.8 0.26 2.10 8.0 

2002–2004 ................................................................ Tier 1 a ...................................................................... 11.0 0.26 1.20 2.5 

2005–2010 ................................................................ Tier 2 a ...................................................................... 8.1 0.13 d 0.60 2.4 

2011–2014 ................................................................ Tier 3 ........................................................................ 5.0 0.10 0.60 2.4 

2015 or later ............................................................. Tier 4 ........................................................................ 1.3 c 0.03 0.14 c 2.4 

aSwitch locomotives subject to the Tier 1 through Tier 2 emission standards must also meet line-haul standards of the same tier.

bThe PM standard for new Tier 2 switch locomotives is 0.24 g/bhp-hr until January 1, 2013. 

c Manufacturers may elect to meet a combined NOX+HC standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr instead of the otherwise applicable Tier 4 NOX and HC 

standards, as described in paragraph (j) of this section. 

(c) Smoke standards. The smoke 

opacity standards specified in Table 3 of 

this section apply only for locomotives 

certified to one or more PM standards or 

FELs greater than 0.05 g/bhp-hr. Smoke 

emissions, when measured in 

accordance with the provisions of 

Subpart F of this part, shall not exceed 

these standards. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16044 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 OF § 1033.101.—SMOKE STANDARDS FOR LOCOMOTIVES (PERCENT OPACITY) 

Steady-state 30-sec peak 3-sec peak 

Tier 0 ............................................................................................................................................ 30 40 50 

Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 25 40 50 

Tier 2 and later ............................................................................................................................ 20 40 50 

(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. No FEL may be higher than 

the previously applicable Tier of 

standards. For example, no FEL for a 

Tier 1 locomotive may be higher than 

the Tier 0 standard. 

(e) Notch standards. (1) Exhaust 

emissions from locomotives may not 

exceed the notch standards specified in 

paragraph (e)(2) of this section, except 

as allowed in paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section, when measured using any test 

procedures under any test conditions. 

(2) Except as specified in paragraph 

(e)(5) of this section, calculate the 

applicable notch standards for each 

pollutant for each notch from the 

certified notch emission rate as follows: 

Notch standard = (Ei) × (1.1 + (1¥ELHi/ 

std)) 

Where: 

Ei = The deteriorated brake-specific emission 

rate (for pollutant I) for the notch (i.e., 

the brake-specific emission rate 

calculated under subpart F of this part, 

adjusted by the deterioration factor in 

the application for certification); where x 

is NOX, HC (or NMHC or THCE, as 

applicable), CO or PM. 

ELHi = The deteriorated line-haul duty-cycle 

weighted brake-specific emission rate for 

pollutant I, as reported in the application 

for certification, except for Tier 3 or later 

switch locomotives, where ELHi equals 

the deteriorated switch duty-cycle 

weighted brake-specific emission rate for 

pollutant I. 

std = The applicable line-haul duty-cycle 

standard or FEL, except for Tier 3 or later 

switch locomotives, where std equals the 

switch duty-cycle standard for pollutant 

I. 

(3) Exhaust emissions that exceed the 

notch standards specified in paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section are allowed only if 

one of the following is true: 

(i) The same emission controls are 

applied during the test conditions 

causing the noncompliance as were 

applied during certification test 

conditions (and to the same degree). 

(ii) The exceedance result from a 

design feature that was described 

(including its effect on emissions) in the 

approved application for certification, 

and is: 

(A) Necessary for safety; 

(B) Addresses infrequent regeneration 

of an aftertreatment device; or 

(C) Otherwise allowed by this part. 

(4) Since you are only required to test 

your locomotive at the highest emitting 

dynamic brake point, the notch caps 

that you calculate for the dynamic brake 

point that you test also applies for other 

dynamic brake points. 

(5) No PM notch caps apply for 

locomotives certified to a PM standard 

or FEL of 0.05 g/bhp-hr or lower. 

(f) Fuels. The exhaust emission 

standards in this section apply for 

locomotives using the fuel type on 

which the locomotives in the engine 

family are designed to operate. 

(1) You must meet the numerical 

emission standards for HC in this 

section based on the following types of 

hydrocarbon emissions for locomotives 

powered by the following fuels: 

(i) Alcohol-fueled locomotives: THCE 

emissions for Tier 3 and earlier 

locomotives and NMHCE for Tier 4. 

(ii) Gaseous-fueled locomotives: 

NMHC emissions. 

(iii) Diesel-fueled and other 

locomotives: THC emissions for Tier 3 

and earlier locomotives and NMHC for 

Tier 4. 

(2) You must certify your dieselfueled locomotives to use the applicable 

grades of diesel fuel as follows: 

(i) Certify your Tier 4 and later dieselfueled locomotives for operation with 

only Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) 

fuel. Use ULSD as the test fuel for these 

locomotives. 

(ii) Certify your Tier 3 and earlier 

diesel-fueled locomotives for operation 

with only ULSD fuel if they include 

sulfur-sensitive technology and you 

demonstrate compliance using a ULSD 

test fuel. 

(iii) Certify your Tier 3 and earlier 

diesel-fueled locomotives for operation 

with either ULSD fuel or Low Sulfur 

Diesel (LSD) fuel if they do not include 

sulfur-sensitive technology or if you 

demonstrate compliance using an LSD 

test fuel. 

(iv) For Tier 2 and earlier dieselfueled locomotives, if you demonstrate 

compliance using a ULSD test fuel, you 

must adjust the measured PM emissions 

upward by 0.01 g/bhp-hr to make them 

equivalent to tests with LSD. 

(g) Useful life. The emission standards 

and requirements in this subpart apply 

to the emissions from new locomotives 

for their useful life. The useful life is 

generally specified as MW-hrs and 

years, and ends when either of the 

values (MW-hrs or years) is exceeded or 

the locomotive is remanufactured. 

(1) The minimum useful life in terms 

of MW-hrs is equal to the product of the 

rated horsepower multiplied by 7.50. 

The minimum useful life in terms of 

years is ten years. For locomotives 

originally manufactured before January 

1, 2000 and not equipped with MW-hr 

meters, the minimum useful life is equal 

to 750,000 miles or ten years, whichever 

is reached first. 

(2) You must specify a longer useful 

life if the locomotive or locomotive 

engine is designed to last longer than 

the applicable minimum useful life. 

Recommending a time to remanufacture 

that is longer than the minimum useful 

life is one indicator of a longer design 

life. 

(3) Manufacturers/remanufacturers of 

locomotive with non-locomotivespecific engines (as defined in 

§ 1033.901) may ask us (before 

certification) to allow a shorter useful 

life for an engine family containing only 

non-locomotive-specific engines. This 

petition must include the full rationale 

behind the request together with any 

other supporting evidence. Based on 

this or other information, we may allow 

a shorter useful life. 

(4) Remanufacturers of locomotive or 

locomotive engine configurations that 

have been previously certified under 

paragraph (g)(3) of this section to a 

useful life that is shorter than the value 

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section may certify to that same shorter 

useful life value without request. 

(h) Applicability for testing. The 

emission standards in this subpart apply 

to all testing, including certification 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16045 

testing, production-line testing, 

selective enforcement audits, and in-use 

testing. 

(i) Alternate CO standards. 

Manufacturers/remanufacturers may 

certify Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2 

locomotives to an alternate CO emission 

standard of 10.0 g/bhp-hr instead of the 

otherwise applicable CO standard if 

they also certify those locomotives to 

alternate PM standards less than or 

equal to one-half of the otherwise 

applicable PM standard. For example, a 

manufacturer certifying Tier 1 

locomotives to a 0.11 g/bhp-hr PM 

standard may certify those locomotives 

to the alternate CO standard of 10.0 g/ 

bhp-hr. 

(j) Alternate NOX+NMHC standards 

for Tier 4. Manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers may certify Tier 4 

locomotives to an alternate NOX+NMHC 

emission standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr 

(instead of the otherwise applicable 

NOX and NMHC standards). You may 

use NOX credits to show compliance 

with this standard by certifying your 

family to a NOX+NMHC FEL. Calculate 

the NOX credits needed as specified in 

subpart H of this part using the 

NOX+NMHC emission standard and FEL 

in the calculation instead of the 

otherwise applicable NOX standard and 

FEL. 

§ 1033.102 Transition to the standards of 

this part for model years before 2015. 

(a) Except as specified in 

§ 1033.150(a), the Tier 0 and Tier 1 

standards of § 1033.101 apply for new 

locomotives beginning January 1, 2010, 

except as specified in § 1033.150(a). The 

Tier 0 and Tier 1 standards of 40 CFR 

part 92 apply for earlier model years. 

(b) Except as specified in 

§ 1033.150(a), the Tier 2 standards of 

§ 1033.101 apply for new locomotives 

beginning January 1, 2013. The Tier 2 

standards of 40 CFR part 92 apply for 

earlier model years. 

(c) The Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards of 

§ 1033.101 apply for the model years 

specified in that section. 

§ 1033.110 Emission diagnostics—general 

requirements. 

The provisions of this section apply if 

you equip your locomotives with a 

diagnostic system that will detect 

significant malfunctions in its emissioncontrol system. See § 1033.420 for 

information about how to select and 

maintain diagnostic-equipped 

locomotives for in-use testing. Notify 

the owner/operator that the presence of 

this diagnostic system affects their 

maintenance obligations under 

§ 1033.815. 

(a) Use a malfunction-indicator light 

(MIL). The MIL must be readily visible 

to the operator. When the MIL goes on, 

it must display ‘‘Check Emission 

Controls’’ or a similar message that we 

approve. You may use sound in 

addition to the light signal. 

(b) You may only illuminate the MIL 

for malfunctions that require 

maintenance action by the owner/ 

operator. To ensure that owner/ 

operators consider MIL illumination 

seriously, you may not illuminate it for 

malfunctions that would not otherwise 

require maintenance. This section does 

not limit your ability to display other 

indicator lights or messages, as long as 

they are clearly distinguishable from 

MILs affecting the owner/operator’s 

maintenance obligations under 

§ 1033.815. 

(c) Control when the MIL can go out. 

If the MIL goes on to show a 

malfunction, it must remain on during 

all later engine operation until servicing 

corrects the malfunction. If the engine is 

not serviced, but the malfunction does 

not recur during the next 24 hours, the 

MIL may stay off during later engine 

operation. 

(d) Record and store in computer 

memory any diagnostic trouble codes 

showing a malfunction that should 

illuminate the MIL. The stored codes 

must identify the malfunctioning system 

or component as uniquely as possible. 

Make these codes available through the 

data link connector as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section. You may 

store codes for conditions that do not 

turn on the MIL. The system must store 

a separate code to show when the 

diagnostic system is disabled (from 

malfunction or tampering). Provide 

instructions to the owner/operator 

regarding how to interpret malfunction 

codes. 

(e) Make data, access codes, and 

devices accessible. Make all required 

data accessible to us without any access 

codes or devices that only you can 

supply. Ensure that anyone servicing 

your locomotive can read and 

understand the diagnostic trouble codes 

stored in the onboard computer with 

generic tools and information. 

(f) Follow standard references for 

formats, codes, and connections. 

§ 1033.112 Emission diagnostics for SCR 

systems. 

Engines equipped with SCR systems 

must meet the requirements of this 

section in addition to the requirements 

of § 1033.110. 

(a) The diagnostic system must 

monitor urea quality and tank levels and 

alert operators to the need to refill the 

urea tank before it is empty using a 

malfunction-indicator light (MIL) as 

specified in § 1033.110 and an audible 

alarm. You do not need to separately 

monitor urea quality if you include an 

exhaust NOX sensor (or other sensor) 

that allows you to determine inadequate 

urea quality. 

(b) Your onboard computer must 

record in nonvolatile computer memory 

all incidents of engine operation with 

inadequate urea injection or urea 

quality. 

§ 1033.115 Other requirements. 

Locomotives that are required to meet 

the emission standards of this part must 

meet the requirements of this section. 

These requirements apply when the 

locomotive is new (for freshly 

manufactured or remanufactured 

locomotives) and continue to apply 

throughout the useful life. 

(a) Crankcase emissions. Crankcase 

emissions may not be discharged 

directly into the ambient atmosphere 

from any locomotive, except as follows: 

(1) Locomotives may discharge 

crankcase emissions to the ambient 

atmosphere if the emissions are added 

to the exhaust emissions (either 

physically or mathematically) during all 

emission testing. If you take advantage 

of this exception, you must do the 

following things: 

(i) Manufacture the locomotives so 

that all crankcase emissions can be 

routed into the applicable sampling 

systems specified in 40 CFR part 1065, 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. 

(ii) Account for deterioration in 

crankcase emissions when determining 

exhaust deterioration factors. 

(2) For purposes of this paragraph (a), 

crankcase emissions that are routed to 

the exhaust upstream of exhaust 

aftertreatment during all operations are 

not considered to be discharged directly 

into the ambient atmosphere. 

(b) Adjustable parameters. 

Locomotives that have adjustable 

parameters must meet all the 

requirements of this part for any 

adjustment in the approved adjustable 

range. You must specify in your 

application for certification the 

adjustable range of each adjustable 

parameter on a new locomotive or new 

locomotive engine to: 

(1) Ensure that safe locomotive 

operating characteristics are available 

within that range, as required by section 

202(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

7521(a)(4)), taking into consideration 

the production tolerances. 

(2) Limit the physical range of 

adjustability to the maximum extent 

practicable to the range that is necessary 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16046 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

for proper operation of the locomotive 

or locomotive engine. 

(c) Prohibited controls. You may not 

design or produce your locomotives 

with emission control devices, systems, 

or elements of design that cause or 

contribute to an unreasonable risk to 

public health, welfare, or safety while 

operating. For example, this would 

apply if the locomotive emits a noxious 

or toxic substance it would otherwise 

not emit that contributes to such an 

unreasonable risk. 

(d) Evaporative and refueling controls. 

For locomotives fueled with a volatile 

fuel you must design and produce them 

to minimize evaporative emissions 

during normal operation, including 

periods when the engine is shut down. 

You must also design and produce them 

to minimize the escape of fuel vapors 

during refueling. Hoses used to refuel 

gaseous-fueled locomotives may not be 

designed to be bled or vented to the 

atmosphere under normal operating 

conditions. No valves or pressure relief 

vents may be used on gaseous-fueled 

locomotives except as emergency safety 

devices that do not operate at normal 

system operating flows and pressures. 

(e) Altitude requirements. All 

locomotives prior to sale, introduction 

into service, or return to service, must 

be designed to include features that 

compensate for changes in altitude to 

ensure that the locomotives will comply 

with the applicable emission standards 

when operated at any altitude less than 

7000 feet above sea level. 

(f) Defeat devices. You may not equip 

your locomotives with a defeat device. 

A defeat device is an auxiliary emission 

control device (AECD) that reduces the 

effectiveness of emission controls under 

conditions that the locomotive may 

reasonably be expected to encounter 

during normal operation and use. 

(1) This does not apply to AECDs you 

identify in your certification application 

if any of the following is true: 

(i) The conditions of concern were 

substantially included in the applicable 

duty cycle test procedures described in 

subpart F of this part. 

(ii) You show your design is necessary 

to prevent locomotive damage or 

accidents. 

(iii) The reduced effectiveness applies 

only to starting the locomotive. 

(iv) The locomotive emissions when 

the AECD is functioning are at or below 

the notch caps of § 1033.101. 

(v) The AECD reduces urea flow for 

an SCR aftertreatment system and meets 

the requirements of this paragraph 

(f)(1)(v). For operation outside the range 

of ambient test conditions specified in 

§ 1033.503 where emissions exceed one 

or more notch caps, your SCR system 

must function so that at least one of the 

following conditions is met at all 

applicable speeds and loads: 

(A) You maintain the mass flow of 

urea into the catalyst in the same 

proportion as the same notch point 

under test conditions. 

(B) You maintain the mass flow of 

urea into the catalyst at the highest level 

possible without emitting ammonia at 

excessive levels (excessive levels would 

generally be levels higher than would 

occur at other operations at the same 

notch point under test conditions). 

(C) The temperature of the exhaust is 

too low to allow urea to be converted to 

ammonia (consistent with good 

engineering judgment). 

(2) If your locomotive is designed to 

allow operation at points other than 

those included as test points, the 

provisions of paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) and 

(v) of this section apply as specified for 

the most similar test point. 

(g) Idle controls. All new locomotives 

must be equipped with automatic 

engine stop/start as described in this 

paragraph (g). All new locomotives must 

be designed to allow the engine(s) to be 

restarted at least six times per day 

without engine damage. 

(1) Except as allowed by paragraph 

(g)(2) of this section, the stop/start 

systems must shut off the main 

locomotive engine(s) after 30 minutes of 

idling (or less) and must prevent the 

engine(s) from being restarted to resume 

extended idling. 

(2) Stop/start systems may restart or 

continue idling for the following 

reasons: 

(i) To prevent engine damage such as 

to prevent the engine coolant from 

freezing. 

(ii) To maintain air brake pressure. 

(iii) To perform necessary 

maintenance. 

(iv) To otherwise comply with federal 

regulations. 

(3) You may ask to use alternate stop/ 

start systems that will achieve 

equivalent idle control. 

§ 1033.120 Emission-related warranty 

requirements. 

(a) General requirements. You must 

warrant to the ultimate purchaser and 

each subsequent purchaser that the new 

locomotive, including all parts of its 

emission control system, meets two 

conditions: 

(1) It is designed, built, and equipped 

so it conforms at the time of sale to the 

ultimate purchaser with the 

requirements of this part. 

(2) It is free from defects in materials 

and workmanship that may keep it from 

meeting these requirements. 

(b) Warranty period. Except as 

specified in this paragraph, the 

minimum warranty period is one-third 

of the useful life. Your emission-related 

warranty must be valid for at least as 

long as the minimum warranty periods 

listed in this paragraph (b) in MW-hrs of 

operation and years, whichever comes 

first. You may offer an emission-related 

warranty more generous than we 

require. The emission-related warranty 

for the locomotive may not be shorter 

than any published warranty you offer 

without charge for the locomotive. 

Similarly, the emission-related warranty 

for any component may not be shorter 

than any published warranty you offer 

without charge for that component. If 

you provide an extended warranty to 

individual owners for any components 

covered in paragraph (c) of this section 

for an additional charge, your emissionrelated warranty must cover those 

components for those owners to the 

same degree. If the locomotive does not 

record MW-hrs, we base the warranty 

periods in this paragraph (b) only on 

years. The warranty period begins when 

the locomotive is placed into service, or 

back into service after remanufacture. 

(c) Components covered. The 

emission-related warranty covers all 

components whose failure would 

increase a locomotive’s emissions of any 

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 these 

components 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 pollutant. 

(d) Limited applicability. You may 

deny warranty claims under this section 

if the operator caused the problem 

through improper maintenance or use, 

as described in 40 CFR 1068.115. 

(e) Owners manual. Describe in the 

owners manual the emission-related 

warranty provisions from this section 

that apply to the locomotive. 

§ 1033.125 Maintenance instructions. 

Give the owner of each new 

locomotive written instructions for 

properly maintaining and using the 

locomotive, including the emissioncontrol system. Include in the 

instructions a notification that owners 

and operators must comply with the 

requirements of subpart I of this part 

1033. The maintenance instructions also 

apply to any service accumulation on 

your emission-data locomotives, as 

described in § 1033.245 and in 40 CFR 

part 1065. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16047 

§ 1033.130 Instructions for engine 

remanufacturing or engine installation. 

(a) If you do not complete assembly of 

the new locomotive (such as selling a kit 

that allows someone else to 

remanufacture a locomotive under your 

certificate), give the assembler 

instructions for completing assembly 

consistent with the requirements of this 

part. Include all information necessary 

to ensure that the locomotive will be 

assembled in its certified configuration. 

(b) Make sure these instructions have 

the following information: 

(1) Include the heading: ‘‘Emissionrelated assembly instructions’’. 

(2) Describe any instructions 

necessary to make sure the assembled 

locomotive will operate according to 

design specifications in your 

application for certification. 

(3) State one of the following as 

applicable: 

(i) ‘‘Failing to follow these 

instructions when remanufacturing a 

locomotive or locomotive engine 

violates federal law (40 CFR 

1068.105(b)), and may subject you to 

fines or other penalties as described in 

the Clean Air Act.’’. 

(ii) ‘‘Failing to follow these 

instructions when installing this 

locomotive engine violates federal law 

(40 CFR 1068.105(b)), and may subject 

you to fines or other penalties as 

described in the Clean Air Act.’’. 

(c) You do not need installation 

instructions for locomotives you 

assemble. 

(d) Provide instructions in writing or 

in an equivalent format. For example, 

you may post instructions on a publicly 

available Web site for downloading or 

printing. If you do not provide the 

instructions in writing, explain in your 

application for certification how you 

will ensure that each assembler is 

informed of the assembly requirements. 

§ 1033.135 Labeling. 

As described in this section, each 

locomotive must have a label on the 

locomotive and a separate label on the 

engine. The label on the locomotive 

stays on the locomotive throughout its 

service life. It generally identifies the 

original certification of the locomotive, 

which is when it was originally 

manufactured for Tier 1 and later 

locomotives. The label on the engine is 

replaced each time the locomotive is 

remanufactured and identifies the most 

recent certification. 

(a) Serial numbers. At the point of 

original manufacture, assign each 

locomotive and locomotive engine a 

serial number or other unique 

identification number and permanently 

affix, engrave, or stamp the number on 

the locomotive and engine in a legible 

way. 

(b) Locomotive labels. (1) Locomotive 

labels meeting the specifications of 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be 

applied as follows: 

(i) The manufacturer must apply a 

locomotive label at the point of original 

manufacture. 

(ii) The remanufacturer must apply a 

locomotive label at the point of original 

remanufacture, unless the locomotive 

was labeled by the original 

manufacturer. 

(iii) Any remanufacturer certifying a 

locomotive to an FEL or standard 

different from the previous FEL or 

standard to which the locomotive was 

previously certified must apply a 

locomotive label. 

(2) The locomotive label must meet all 

of the following criteria: 

(i) The label must be permanent and 

legible and affixed to the locomotive in 

a position in which it will remain 

readily visible. Attach it to a locomotive 

chassis part necessary for normal 

operation and not normally requiring 

replacement during the service life of 

the locomotive. You may not attach this 

label to the engine or to any equipment 

that is easily detached from the 

locomotive. Attach the label so that it 

cannot be removed without destroying 

or defacing the label. The label may be 

made up of more than one piece, as long 

as all pieces are permanently attached to 

the same locomotive part. 

(ii) The label must be lettered in the 

English language using a color that 

contrasts with the background of the 

label. 

(iii) The label must include all the 

following information: 

(A) The label heading: ‘‘ORIGINAL 

LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL 

INFORMATION.’’ Manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers may add a subheading 

to distinguish this label from the engine 

label described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(B) Full corporate name and 

trademark of the manufacturer (or 

remanufacturer). 

(C) The applicable engine family and 

configuration identification. In the case 

of locomotive labels applied by the 

manufacturer at the point of original 

manufacture, this will be the engine 

family and configuration identification 

of the certificate applicable to the 

freshly manufactured locomotive. In the 

case of locomotive labels applied by a 

remanufacturer during remanufacture, 

this will be the engine family and 

configuration identification of the 

certificate under which the 

remanufacture is being performed. 

(D) Date of original manufacture of the 

locomotive, as defined in § 1033.901. 

(E) The standards/FELs to which the 

locomotive was certified and the 

following statement: ‘‘THIS 

LOCOMOTIVE MUST COMPLY WITH 

THESE EMISSION LEVELS EACH TIME 

THAT IT IS REMANUFACTURED, 

EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY 40 CFR 

1033.750.’’. 

(3) Label diesel-fueled locomotives 

near the fuel inlet to identify the 

allowable fuels, consistent with 

§ 1033.101. For example, Tier 4 

locomotives should be labeled ‘‘ULTRA 

LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ONLY’’. 

You do not need to label Tier 3 and 

earlier locomotives certified for use with 

both LSD and ULSD. 

(c) Engine labels. (1) Engine labels 

meeting the specifications of paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section shall be applied by: 

(i) Every manufacturer at the point of 

original manufacture; and 

(ii) Every remanufacturer at the point 

of remanufacture (including the original 

remanufacture and subsequent 

remanufactures). 

(2) The engine label must meet all of 

the following criteria: 

(i) The label must be durable 

throughout the useful life of the engine, 

be legible and affixed to the engine in 

a position in which it will be readily 

visible after installation of the engine in 

the locomotive. Attach it to an engine 

part necessary for normal operation and 

not normally requiring replacement 

during the useful life of the locomotive. 

You may not attach this label to any 

equipment that is easily detached from 

the engine. Attach the label so it cannot 

be removed without destroying or 

defacing the label. The label may be 

made up of more than one piece, as long 

as all pieces are permanently attached to 

the same locomotive part. 

(ii) The label must be lettered in the 

English language using a color that 

contrasts with the background of the 

label. 

(iii) The label must include all the 

following information: 

(A) The label heading: ‘‘ENGINE 

EMISSION CONTROL 

INFORMATION.’’. Manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers may add a subheading 

to distinguish this label from the 

locomotive label described in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(B) Full corporate name and 

trademark of the manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer. 

(C) Engine family and configuration 

identification as specified in the 

certificate under which the locomotive 

is being manufactured or 

remanufactured. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16048 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(D) A prominent unconditional 

statement of compliance with U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

regulations which apply to locomotives, 

as applicable: 

(1) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 0 

switch locomotives.’’. 

(2) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 0 

line-haul locomotives.’’. 

(3) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 1 

locomotives.’’. 

(4) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 2 

locomotives.’’. 

(5) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 3 

switch locomotives.’’. 

(6) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 3 

line-haul locomotives.’’. 

(7) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 4 

switch locomotives.’’. 

(8) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S. 

EPA regulations applicable to Tier 4 

line-haul locomotives.’’. 

(E) The useful life of the locomotive. 

(F) The standards/FELS to which the 

locomotive was certified. 

(G) Engine tune-up specifications and 

adjustments, as recommended by the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer, in 

accordance with the applicable 

emission standards. This includes but is 

not limited to idle speed(s), injection 

timing or ignition timing (as applicable), 

and valve lash (as applicable). 

(H) Other critical operating 

instructions such as those related to 

urea use for SCR systems. 

(d) Manufacturers/remanufacturers 

may also provide other information on 

the labels that they deem necessary for 

the proper operation and maintenance 

of the locomotive. Manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers may also include other 

features to prevent counterfeiting of 

labels. 

(e) You may ask us to approve 

modified labeling requirements in this 

part 1033 if you show that it is 

necessary or appropriate. We will 

approve your request if your alternate 

label is consistent with the requirements 

of this part. 

§ 1033.140 Rated power. 

This section describes how to 

determine the rated power of a 

locomotive for the purposes of this part. 

Note that rated power is used as the 

maximum test power in subpart F of 

this part for testing of locomotives and 

locomotive engines. 

(a) A locomotive configuration’s rated 

power is the maximum brake power 

point on the nominal power curve for 

the locomotive configuration, as defined 

in this section. See § 1033.901 for the 

definition of brake power. Round the 

power value to the nearest whole 

horsepower. Generally, this will be the 

brake power of the engine in notch 8. 

(b) The nominal power curve of a 

locomotive configuration is its 

maximum available brake power at each 

possible operator demand setpoint or 

‘‘notch’’. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for the 

definition of operator demand. The 

maximum available power at each 

operator demand setpoint is based on 

your design and production 

specifications for that locomotive. The 

nominal power curve does not include 

any operator demand setpoints that are 

not achievable during in-use operation. 

For example, for a locomotive with only 

eight discrete operator demand 

setpoints, or notches, the nominal 

power curve would be a series of eight 

power points versus notch, rather than 

a continuous curve. 

(c) The nominal power curve must be 

within the range of the actual power 

curves of production locomotives 

considering normal production 

variability. If after production begins it 

is determined that your nominal power 

curve does not represent production 

locomotives, we may require you to 

amend your application for certification 

under § 1033.225. 

§ 1033.150 Interim provisions. 

The provisions of this section apply 

instead of other provisions of this part 

for a limited time. This section 

describes when these provisions apply. 

(a) Early availability of Tier 0, Tier 1, 

or Tier 2 systems. For model years 2008 

and 2009, you may remanufacture 

locomotives to meet the applicable 

standards in 40 CFR part 92 only if no 

remanufacture system has been certified 

to meet the standards of this part and is 

available at a reasonable cost at least 

three months prior to the completion of 

the remanufacture. For model years 

2008 through 2012, you may 

remanufacture Tier 2 locomotives to 

meet the applicable standards in 40 CFR 

part 92 only if no remanufacture system 

has been certified to meet the standards 

of this part and is available at a 

reasonable cost at least three months 

prior to the completion of the 

remanufacture. For the purpose of this 

paragraph (a), available at a reasonable 

cost means available for use where all 

of the following are true: 

(1) The total incremental cost to the 

owner and operators of the locomotive 

due to meeting the new standards 

(including initial hardware, increased 

fuel consumption, and increased 

maintenance costs) during the useful 

life of the locomotive is less than 

$220,000. 

(2) The initial incremental hardware 

costs are reasonably related to the 

technology included in the 

remanufacturing system and are less 

than $125,000. 

(3) The remanufactured locomotive 

will have reliability throughout its 

useful life that is similar to the 

reliability the locomotive would have 

had if it had been remanufactured 

without the certified remanufacture 

system. 

(4) The remanufacturer must 

demonstrate at the time of certification 

that the system meets the requirements 

of this paragraph (a). 

(b) Delayed NOX standards for Tier 4. 

For model years 2015 and 2016, freshly 

manufactured locomotives are not 

required to meet the Tier 4 NOX

standards, but must comply with all 

other applicable standards and 

requirements. Model year 2015 and 

2016 locomotives must comply with all 

Tier 4 requirements when 

remanufactured on or after January 1, 

2017. 

(c) Locomotive labels for transition to 

new standards. This paragraph (c) 

applies when you remanufacture a 

locomotive that was previously certified 

under 40 CFR part 92. You must remove 

the old locomotive label and replace it 

with the locomotive label specified in 

§ 1033.135. 

(d) Small manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer provisions. The 

production-line testing/auditing 

requirements and in-use testing 

requirements of this part do not apply 

until January 1, 2013 for manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers that qualify as small 

manufacturers under § 1033.901 

(e) Producing switch locomotives 

using certified nonroad engines. You 

may use the provisions of this paragraph 

(e) to produce new switch locomotives 

in model years 2008 through 2017. 

Locomotives produced under this 

paragraph (e) are exempt from the 

standards and requirements of this part 

and 40 CFR part 92 subject to the 

following provisions: 

(1) All of the engines on the switch 

locomotive must be covered by a 

certificate of conformity issued under 40 

CFR part 89 or 1039 for model year 2008 

or later. Engines over 750 hp certified to 

the Tier 4 standards for non-generator 

set engines are not eligible for this 

allowance after 2014. 

(2) You must reasonably project that 

more of the engines will be sold and 

used for non-locomotive use than for 

use in locomotives. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16049 

(3) You may not generate or use 

locomotive credits under this part for 

these locomotives. 

(f) In-use compliance limits. For 

purposes of determining compliance 

after title or custody of a new Tier 4 

locomotive has transferred to the 

ultimate purchaser (or the locomotive 

has been placed into service), calculate 

the applicable in-use compliance limits 

by adjusting the applicable standards/ 

FELs. (Note that this means that these 

adjustments do not apply for 

certification or production-line testing.) 

The PM adjustment applies only for 

model year 2015–2017 locomotives and 

does not apply for locomotives with a 

PM FEL higher than 0.03 g/bhp-hr. The 

NOX adjustment applies only for model 

year 2017–2019 line-haul locomotives 

and 2015–2017 switch locomotives and 

does not apply for locomotives with a 

NOX FEL higher than 2.0 g/bhp-hr. Add 

the applicable adjustments in Tables 1 

or 2 of this section (which follow) to the 

otherwise applicable standards (or 

FELs) and notch caps. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.150—IN-USE ADJUSTMENTS FOR TIER 4 LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVES

Fraction of useful life already used 

In-use adjustments (g/ 

bhp-hr) 

For model 

year 2017–

2019 Tier 4 

NOX standards 

For model 

year 2015–

2017 Tier 4 

PM standards 

0 < MW-hrs = 50% of UL ................................................................................................................................................ 0.7 0.01 

50 < MW-hrs = 75% of UL .............................................................................................................................................. 1.0 

75 < MW-hrs = 100% of UL ............................................................................................................................................ 1.3 

TABLE 2 OF § 1033.150.—IN-USE ADJUSTMENTS FOR TIER 4 SWITCH LOCOMOTIVES

Fraction of useful life already used 

In-use adjustments (g/ 

bhp-hr) 

For model 

year 2015–

2017 Tier 4 

NOX standards 

For model 

year 2015–

2017 Tier 4 

PM standards 

0 < useful life = 50% ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.7 0.01 

50 < useful life = 75% ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 

75 < useful life = 100% ................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 

(g) Test procedures. You are generally 

required to use the test procedures 

specified in subpart F of this part 

(including the applicable test 

procedures in 40 CFR part 1065). As 

specified in this paragraph (g), you may 

use a combination of the test procedures 

specified in this part and the test 

procedures specified in 40 CFR part 92 

prior to January 1, 2015. After this date, 

you must use only the test procedures 

specified in this part. 

(1) Prior to January 1, 2015, you may 

ask to use some or all of the procedures 

specified in 40 CFR part 92 for 

locomotives certified under this part 

1033. 

(2) If you ask to rely on a combination 

of procedures under this paragraph (g), 

we will approve your request only if 

you show us that it does not affect your 

ability to demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable emission standards. 

Generally this requires that the 

combined procedures would result in 

emission measurements at least as high 

as those that would be measured using 

the procedures specified in this part. 

Alternatively, you may demonstrate that 

the combined effects of the different 

procedures is small relative to your 

compliance margin (the degree to which 

your locomotives are below the 

applicable standards). 

Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families 

§ 1033.201 General requirements for 

obtaining a certificate of conformity. 

Certification is the process by which 

you demonstrate to us that your freshly 

manufactured or remanufactured 

locomotives will meet the applicable 

emission standards throughout their 

useful lives (explaining to us how you 

plan to manufacture or remanufacture 

locomotives, and providing test data 

showing that such locomotives will 

comply with all applicable emission 

standards.) Anyone meeting the 

definition of manufacturer in § 1033.901 

may apply for a certificate of conformity 

for freshly manufactured locomotives. 

Anyone meeting the definition of 

remanufacturer in § 1033.901 may apply 

for a certificate of conformity for 

remanufactured locomotives. 

(a) You must send us a separate 

application for a certificate of 

conformity for each engine family. A 

certificate of conformity is valid starting 

with the indicated effective date, but it 

is not valid for any production after 

December 31 of the model year for 

which it is issued. 

(b) The application must contain all 

the information required by this part 

and must not include false or 

incomplete statements or information 

(see § 1033.255). 

(c) We may ask you to include less 

information than we specify in this 

subpart, as long as you maintain all the 

information required by § 1033.250. 

(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 § 1033.255 for provisions 

describing how we will process your 

application. 

(g) We may require you to deliver 

your test locomotives to a facility we 

designate for our testing (see 

§ 1033.235(c)). 

(h) By applying for a certificate of 

conformity, you are accepting 

responsibility for the in-use emission 

performance of all properly maintained 

and used locomotives covered by your 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16050 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

certificate. This responsibility applies 

without regard to whether you 

physically manufacture or 

remanufacture the entire locomotive. If 

you do not physically manufacture or 

remanufacture the entire locomotive, 

you must take reasonable steps 

(including those specified by this part) 

to ensure that the locomotives produced 

under your certificate conform to the 

specifications of your application for 

certification. 

§ 1033.205 Applying for a certificate of 

conformity. 

(a) Send the Designated Compliance 

Officer a complete application for each 

engine family for which you are 

requesting a certificate of conformity. 

(b) The application must be approved 

and signed by the authorized 

representative of your company. 

(c) You must update and correct your 

application to accurately reflect your 

production, as described in § 1033.225. 

(d) Include the following information 

in your application: 

(1) A description of the basic engine 

design including, but not limited to, the 

engine family specifications listed in 

§ 1033.230. For freshly manufactured 

locomotives, a description of the basic 

locomotive design. For remanufactured 

locomotives, a description of the basic 

locomotive designs to which the 

remanufacture system will be applied. 

Include in your description, a list of 

distinguishable configurations to be 

included in the engine family. 

(2) An explanation of how the 

emission control system operates, 

including detailed descriptions of: 

(i) All emission control system 

components. 

(ii) Injection or ignition timing for 

each notch (i.e., degrees before or after 

top-dead-center), and any functional 

dependence of such timing on other 

operational parameters (e.g., engine 

coolant temperature). 

(iii) Each auxiliary emission control 

device (AECD). 

(iv) All fuel system components to be 

installed on any production or test 

locomotives. 

(v) Diagnostics. 

(3) A description of the test 

locomotive. 

(4) A description of the test 

equipment and fuel used. Identify any 

special or alternate test procedures you 

used. 

(5) A description of the operating 

cycle and the period of operation 

necessary to accumulate service hours 

on the test locomotive and stabilize 

emission levels. You may also include 

a Green Engine Factor that would adjust 

emissions from zero-hour engines to be 

equivalent to stabilized engines. 

(6) A description of all adjustable 

operating parameters (including, but not 

limited to, injection timing and fuel 

rate), including the following: 

(i) The nominal or recommended 

setting and the associated production 

tolerances. 

(ii) The intended adjustable range, 

and the physically adjustable range. 

(iii) The limits or stops used to limit 

adjustable ranges. 

(iv) Production tolerances of the 

limits or stops used to establish each 

physically adjustable range. 

(v) Information relating to why the 

physical limits or stops used to establish 

the physically adjustable range of each 

parameter, or any other means used to 

inhibit adjustment, are the most 

effective means possible of preventing 

adjustment of parameters to settings 

outside your specified adjustable ranges 

on in-use engines. 

(7) Projected U.S. production 

information for each configuration. If 

you are projecting substantially different 

sales of a configuration than you had 

previously, we may require you to 

explain why you are projecting the 

change. 

(8) All test data obtained by the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer on each 

test engine or locomotive. As described 

in § 1033.235, we may allow you to 

demonstrate compliance based on 

results from previous emission tests, 

development tests, or other testing 

information. 

(9) The intended deterioration factors 

for the engine family, in accordance 

with § 1033.245. If the deterioration 

factors for the engine family were 

developed using procedures that we 

have not previously approved, you 

should request preliminary approval 

under § 1033.210. 

(10) The intended useful life period 

for the engine family, in accordance 

with § 1033.101(g). If the useful life for 

the engine family was determined using 

procedures that we have not previously 

approved, you should request 

preliminary approval under § 1033.210. 

(11) Copies of your proposed emission 

control label(s), maintenance 

instructions, and installation 

instructions (where applicable). 

(12) An unconditional statement 

certifying that all locomotives included 

the engine family comply with all 

requirements of this part and the Clean 

Air Act. 

(e) If we request it, you must supply 

such additional information as may be 

required to evaluate the application. 

(f) Provide the information to read, 

record, and interpret all the information 

broadcast by a locomotive’s onboard 

computers and electronic control units. 

State that, upon request, you will give 

us any hardware, software, or tools we 

would need to do this. You may 

reference any appropriate publicly 

released standards that define 

conventions for these messages and 

parameters. Format your information 

consistent with publicly released 

standards. 

(g) Include the information required 

by other subparts of this part. For 

example, include the information 

required by § 1033.725 if you participate 

in the ABT program. 

(h) Include other applicable 

information, such as information 

specified in this part or part 1068 of this 

chapter related to requests for 

exemptions. 

(i) Name an agent for service located 

in the United States. Service on this 

agent constitutes service on you or any 

of your officers or employees for any 

action by EPA or otherwise by the 

United States related to the 

requirements of this part. 

(j) For imported locomotives, identify 

the following: 

(1) The port(s) at which you will 

import your engines. 

(2) The names and addresses of the 

agents you have authorized to import 

your engines. 

(3) The location of test facilities in the 

United States where you can test your 

engines if we select them for testing 

under a selective enforcement audit, as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart 

E. 

§ 1033.210 Preliminary approval. 

(a) If you send us information before 

you finish the application, we will 

review it and make any appropriate 

determinations for questions related to 

engine family definitions, auxiliary 

emission-control devices, deterioration 

factors, testing for service accumulation, 

maintenance, and useful lives. 

(b) Decisions made under this section 

are considered to be preliminary 

approval, subject to final review and 

approval. We will generally not reverse 

a decision where we have given you 

preliminary approval, unless we find 

new information supporting a different 

decision. 

(c) If you request preliminary 

approval related to the upcoming model 

year or the model year after that, we will 

make best-efforts to make the 

appropriate determinations as soon as 

practicable. We will generally not 

provide preliminary approval related to 

a future model year more than three 

years ahead of time. 

(d) You must obtain preliminary 

approval for your plan to develop 

deterioration factors prior to the start of 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16051 

any service accumulation to be used to 

develop the factors. 

§ 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. We will 

disapprove your request if we determine 

that the amended instructions are 

inconsistent with maintenance you 

performed on emission-data 

locomotives. If owners/operators follow 

the original maintenance instructions 

rather than the newly specified 

maintenance, this does not allow you to 

disqualify those locomotives from inuse testing or deny a warranty claim. 

(a) If you are decreasing 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. 

(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 locomotives in severeduty applications. 

(c) You do not need to 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). 

§ 1033.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

Before we issue you a certificate of 

conformity, you may amend your 

application to include new or modified 

locomotive configurations, subject to the 

provisions of this section. After we have 

issued your certificate of conformity, 

you may send us an amended 

application requesting that we include 

new or modified locomotive 

configurations within the scope of the 

certificate, subject to the provisions of 

this section. 

You must also amend your 

application if any changes occur with 

respect to any information included in 

your application. For example, you 

must amend your application if you 

determine that your actual production 

variation for an adjustable parameter 

exceeds the tolerances specified in your 

application. 

(a) You must amend your application 

before you take either of the following 

actions: 

(1) Add a locomotive configuration to 

an engine family. In this case, the 

locomotive added must be consistent 

with other locomotives in the engine 

family with respect to the criteria listed 

in § 1033.230. For example, you must 

amend your application if you want to 

produce 12-cylinder versions of the 16- 

cylinder locomotives you described in 

your application. 

(2) Change a locomotive already 

included in an engine family in a way 

that may affect emissions, or change any 

of the components you described in 

your application for certification. This 

includes production and design changes 

that may affect emissions any time 

during the locomotive’s lifetime. For 

example, you must amend your 

application if you want to change a part 

supplier if the part was described in 

your original application and is 

different in any material respect than 

the part you described. 

(3) Modify an FEL for an engine 

family as described in paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(b) To amend your application for 

certification, send the Designated 

Compliance Officer the following 

information: 

(1) Describe in detail the addition or 

change in the locomotive model or 

configuration you intend to make. 

(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 with 

respect to showing compliance of the 

amended family with all applicable 

requirements. 

(3) If the original emission-data 

locomotive for the engine family is not 

appropriate to show compliance for the 

new or modified locomotive, include 

new test data showing that the new or 

modified locomotive meets the 

requirements of this part. 

(c) We may ask for more test data or 

engineering evaluations. You must give 

us these within 30 days after we request 

them. 

(d) For engine families already 

covered by a certificate of conformity, 

we will determine whether the existing 

certificate of conformity covers your 

new or modified locomotive. You may 

ask for a hearing if we deny your request 

(see § 1033.920). 

(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, 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 your productionweighted average FEL for the model 

year, as described in subpart H of this 

part. If you amend your application 

without submitting new test data, you 

must use the higher FEL for the entire 

family to calculate your productionweighted average FEL 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16052 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 your 

production-weighted average FEL for 

the model year, as described in subpart 

H of this part. 

§ 1033.230 Grouping locomotives into 

engine families. 

(a) Divide your product line into 

engine families of locomotives that are 

expected to have similar emission 

characteristics throughout the useful 

life. Your engine family is limited to a 

single model year. Freshly 

manufactured locomotives may not be 

included in the same engine family as 

remanufactured locomotives, except as 

allowed by paragraph (f) of this section. 

(b) This paragraph (b) applies for all 

locomotives other than Tier 0 

locomotives. Group locomotives in the 

same engine family if they are the same 

in all the following aspects: 

(1) The combustion cycle (e.g., diesel 

cycle). 

(2) The type of engine cooling 

employed and procedure(s) employed to 

maintain engine temperature within 

desired limits (thermostat, on-off 

radiator fan(s), radiator shutters, etc.). 

(3) The bore and stroke dimensions. 

(4) The approximate intake and 

exhaust event timing and duration 

(valve or port). 

(5) The location of the intake and 

exhaust valves (or ports). 

(6) The size of the intake and exhaust 

valves (or ports). 

(7) The overall injection or ignition 

timing characteristics (i.e., the deviation 

of the timing curves from the optimal 

fuel economy timing curve must be 

similar in degree). 

(8) The combustion chamber 

configuration and the surface-to-volume 

ratio of the combustion chamber when 

the piston is at top dead center position, 

using nominal combustion chamber 

dimensions. 

(9) The location of the piston rings on 

the piston. 

(10) The method of air aspiration 

(turbocharged, supercharged, naturally 

aspirated, Roots blown). 

(11) The general performance 

characteristics of the turbocharger or 

supercharger (e.g., approximate boost 

pressure, approximate response time, 

approximate size relative to engine 

displacement). 

(12) The type of air inlet cooler (airto-air, air-to-liquid, approximate degree 

to which inlet air is cooled). 

(13) The intake manifold induction 

port size and configuration. 

(14) The type of fuel and fuel system 

configuration. 

(15) The configuration of the fuel 

injectors and approximate injection 

pressure. 

(16) The type of fuel injection system 

controls (i.e., mechanical or electronic). 

(17) The type of smoke control 

system. 

(18) The exhaust manifold port size 

and configuration. 

(19) The type of exhaust 

aftertreatment system (oxidation 

catalyst, particulate trap), and 

characteristics of the aftertreatment 

system (catalyst loading, converter size 

vs. engine size). 

(c) Group Tier 0 locomotives in the 

same engine family if they are the same 

in all the following aspects: 

(1) The combustion cycle (e.g., diesel 

cycle). 

(2) The type of engine cooling 

employed and procedure(s) employed to 

maintain engine temperature within 

desired limits (thermostat, on-off 

radiator fan(s), radiator shutters, etc.). 

(3) The approximate bore and stroke 

dimensions. 

(4) The approximate location of the 

intake and exhaust valves (or ports). 

(5) The combustion chamber general 

configuration and the approximate 

surface-to-volume ratio of the 

combustion chamber when the piston is 

at top dead center position, using 

nominal combustion chamber 

dimensions. 

(6) The method of air aspiration 

(turbocharged, supercharged, naturally 

aspirated, Roots blown). 

(7) The type of air inlet cooler (air-toair, air-to-liquid, approximate degree to 

which inlet air is cooled). 

(8) The type of fuel and general fuel 

system configuration. 

(9) The general configuration of the 

fuel injectors and approximate injection 

pressure. 

(10) The type of fuel injection system 

control (electronic or mechanical). 

(d) You may subdivide a group of 

locomotives that is identical under 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section into 

different engine families if you show the 

expected emission characteristics are 

different during the useful life. For the 

purposes of determining whether an 

engine family is a small engine family 

in § 1033.405(a)(2), we will consider the 

number of locomotives that could have 

been classed together under paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section, instead of the 

number of locomotives that are included 

in a subdivision allowed by this 

paragraph (d). 

(e) In unusual circumstances, you 

may group locomotives that are not 

identical with respect to the things 

listed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this 

section in the same engine family if you 

show that their emission characteristics 

during the useful life will be similar. 

(f) During the first five calendar years 

after a new tier of standards become 

applicable, remanufactured engines may 

be included in the same engine family 

as freshly manufactured locomotives, 

provided such engines are used for 

locomotive models included in the 

engine family. 

§ 1033.235 Emission testing required for 

certification. 

This section describes the emission 

testing you must perform to show 

compliance with the emission standards 

in § 1033.101. 

(a) Test your emission-data 

locomotives using the procedures and 

equipment specified in subpart F of this 

part. 

(b) Select an emission-data 

locomotive (or engine) from each engine 

family for testing. It may be a low 

mileage locomotive, or a development 

engine (that is equivalent in design to 

the engines of the locomotives being 

certified), or another low hour engine. 

Use good engineering judgment to select 

the locomotive configuration that is 

most likely to exceed (or have emissions 

nearest to) an applicable emission 

standard or FEL. In making this 

selection, consider all factors expected 

to affect emission control performance 

and compliance with the standards, 

including emission levels of all exhaust 

constituents, especially NOX and PM. 

(c) We may measure emissions from 

any of your test 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 test 

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 test 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16053 

(d) You may ask to use emission data 

from a previous model year instead of 

doing new tests if all the following are 

true: 

(1) The engine family from the 

previous model year differs from the 

current engine family only with respect 

to model year, or other factors not 

related to emissions. You may include 

additional configurations subject to the 

provisions of § 1033.225. 

(2) The emission-data locomotive 

from the previous model year remains 

the appropriate emission-data 

locomotive under paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(3) The data show that the emissiondata locomotive would meet all the 

requirements that apply to the engine 

family covered by the application for 

certification. 

(e) We may require you to test a 

second locomotive of the same or 

different configuration in addition to the 

locomotive tested under paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(f) 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 specified 

in subpart F of this part, we may reject 

data you generated using the alternate 

procedure. 

§ 1033.240 Demonstrating compliance with 

exhaust emission standards. 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

engine family is considered in 

compliance with the applicable 

numerical emission standards in 

§ 1033.101 if all emission-data 

locomotives representing that family 

have test results showing deteriorated 

emission levels at or below these 

standards. 

(1) If you include your locomotive in 

the ABT program in subpart H of this 

part, your FELs are considered to be the 

applicable emission standards with 

which you must comply. 

(2) If you do not include your 

locomotive in the ABT program in 

subpart H of this part, but it was 

previously included in the ABT 

program in subpart H of this part, the 

previous FELs are considered to be the 

applicable emission standards with 

which you must comply. 

(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 above an applicable FEL 

or emission standard from § 1033.101 

for any pollutant. Use the following 

steps to determine the deteriorated 

emission level for the test locomotive: 

(1) Collect emission data using 

measurements with enough significant 

figures to calculate the cycle-weighted 

emission rate to at least one more 

decimal place than the applicable 

standard. Apply any applicable 

humidity corrections before weighting 

emissions. 

(2) Apply the regeneration factors if 

applicable. At this point the emission 

rate is generally considered to be an 

official emission result. 

(3) Apply the deterioration factor to 

the official emission result, as described 

in § 1033.245, then round the adjusted 

figure to the same number of decimal 

places as the emission standard. This 

adjusted value is the deteriorated 

emission level. Compare these emission 

levels from the emission-data 

locomotive with the applicable emission 

standards. In the case of NOX+NMHC 

standards, apply the deterioration factor 

to each pollutant and then add the 

results before rounding. 

(4) The highest deteriorated emission 

levels for each pollutant are considered 

to be the certified emission levels. 

§ 1033.245 Deterioration factors. 

Establish deterioration factors for each 

pollutant to determine whether your 

locomotives will meet emission 

standards for each pollutant throughout 

the useful life, as described in 

§§ 1033.101 and 1033.240. Determine 

deterioration factors as described in this 

section, either with an engineering 

analysis, with pre-existing test data, or 

with new emission measurements. The 

deterioration factors are intended to 

reflect the deterioration expected to 

result during the useful life of a 

locomotive maintained as specified in 

§ 1033.125. If you perform durability 

testing, the maintenance that you may 

perform on your emission-data 

locomotive is limited to the 

maintenance described in § 1033.125. 

(a) Your deterioration factors must 

take into account any available data 

from in-use testing with similar 

locomotives, consistent with good 

engineering judgment. For example, it 

would not be consistent with good 

engineering judgment to use 

deterioration factors that predict 

emission increases over the useful life of 

a locomotive or locomotive engine that 

are significantly less than the emission 

increases over the useful life observed 

from in-use testing of similar 

locomotives. 

(b) Deterioration factors may be 

additive or multiplicative. 

(1) Additive deterioration factor for 

exhaust emissions. Except as specified 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, use 

an additive deterioration factor for 

exhaust emissions. An additive 

deterioration factor for a pollutant 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 locomotive at the 

selected test point by adding the factor 

to the measured emissions. The 

deteriorated emission level is intended 

to represent the highest emission level 

during the useful life. Thus, if the factor 

is less than zero, use zero. Additive 

deterioration factors must be specified 

to one more decimal place than the 

applicable standard. 

(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor 

for exhaust emissions. Use a 

multiplicative deterioration factor if 

good engineering judgment calls for the 

deterioration factor for a pollutant to be 

the ratio of exhaust emissions at the end 

of the useful life to exhaust emissions at 

the low-hour test point. For example, if 

you use aftertreatment technology that 

controls emissions of a pollutant 

proportionally to engine-out emissions, 

it is often appropriate to use a 

multiplicative deterioration factor. 

Adjust the official emission results for 

each tested locomotive at the selected 

test point by multiplying the measured 

emissions by the deterioration factor. 

The deteriorated emission level is 

intended to represent the highest 

emission level during the useful life. 

Thus, if the factor is less than one, use 

one. 

A multiplicative deterioration factor 

may not be appropriate in cases where 

testing variability is significantly greater 

than locomotive-to-locomotive 

variability. Multiplicative deterioration 

factors must be specified to one more 

significant figure than the applicable 

standard. 

(c) Deterioration factors for smoke are 

always additive. 

(d) If your locomotive vents crankcase 

emissions to the exhaust or to the 

atmosphere, you must account for 

crankcase emission deterioration, using 

good engineering judgment. You may 

use separate deterioration factors for 

crankcase emissions of each pollutant 

(either multiplicative or additive) or 

include the effects in combined 

deterioration factors that include 

exhaust and crankcase emissions 

together for each pollutant. 

(e) Include the following information 

in your application for certification: 

(1) If you use test data from a different 

engine family, explain why this is 

appropriate and include all the emission 

measurements on which you base the 

deterioration factor. 

(2) If you determine your 

deterioration factors based 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16054 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

onengineering analysis, explain why 

this is appropriate and include a 

statement that all data, analyses, 

evaluations, and other information you 

used are available for our review upon 

request. 

(3) If you do testing to determine 

deterioration factors, describe the form 

and extent of service accumulation, 

including a rationale for selecting the 

service-accumulation period and the 

method you use to accumulate hours. 

§ 1033.250 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) Within 45 days after the end of the 

model year, send the Designated 

Compliance Officer a report describing 

the following information about 

locomotives you produced during the 

model year: 

(1) Report the total number of 

locomotives you produced in each 

engine family by locomotive model and 

engine model. 

(2) If you produced exempted 

locomotives, report the number of 

exempted locomotives you produced for 

each locomotive model and identify the 

buyer or shipping destination for each 

exempted locomotive. 

(b) Organize and maintain the 

following records: 

(1) A copy of all applications and any 

summary information you send us. 

(2) Any of the information we specify 

in § 1033.205 that you were not required 

to include in your application. 

(3) A detailed history of each 

emission-data locomotive. For each 

locomotive, describe all of the 

following: 

(i) The emission-data locomotive’s 

construction, including its origin and 

buildup, steps you took to ensure that 

it represents production locomotives, 

any components you built specially for 

it, and all the components you include 

in your application for certification. 

(ii) How you accumulated locomotive 

operating hours (service accumulation), 

including the dates and the number of 

hours accumulated. 

(iii) All maintenance, including 

modifications, parts changes, and other 

service, and the dates and reasons for 

the maintenance. 

(iv) All your emission tests, including 

documentation on routine and standard 

tests, as specified in part 40 CFR part 

1065, and the date and purpose of each 

test. 

(v) All tests to diagnose locomotive or 

emission control performance, giving 

the date and time of each and the 

reasons for the test. 

(vi) Any other significant events. 

(4) If you test a development engine 

for certification, you may omit 

information otherwise required by 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section that is 

unrelated to emissions and emissionrelated components. 

(5) Production figures for each engine 

family divided by assembly plant. 

(6) Keep a list of locomotive 

identification numbers for all the 

locomotives you produce under each 

certificate of conformity. 

(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 paragraph (a) of 

this section for eight years after we issue 

your certificate. 

(d) 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. 

(e) Send us copies of any locomotive 

maintenance instructions or 

explanations if we ask for them. 

§ 1033.255 EPA decisions. 

(a) If we determine your application is 

complete and shows that the engine 

family meets all the requirements of this 

part and the Clean Air Act, we will 

issue a certificate of conformity for your 

engine family for that model year. We 

may make the approval subject to 

additional conditions. 

(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. Our decision may be based on 

a review of all information available to 

us. If we deny your application, we will 

explain why in writing. 

(c) In addition, we may deny your 

application or suspend or revoke your 

certificate if you do any of the 

following: 

(1) Refuse to comply with any testing 

or reporting requirements. 

(2) Submit false or incomplete 

information (paragraph (e) of this 

section applies if this is fraudulent). 

(3) Render inaccurate any test data. 

(4) Deny us from completing 

authorized activities. This includes a 

failure to provide reasonable assistance. 

(5) Produce locomotives for 

importation into the United States at a 

location where local law prohibits us 

from carrying out authorized activities. 

(6) Fail to supply requested 

information or amend your application 

to include all locomotives being 

produced. 

(7) Take any action that otherwise 

circumvents the intent of the Clean Air 

Act or this part. 

(d) We may void your certificate if 

you do not keep the records we require 

or do not give us information when we 

ask for it. 

(e) We may void your certificate if we 

find that you intentionally submitted 

false or incomplete information. 

(f) If we deny your application or 

suspend, revoke, or void your 

certificate, you may ask for a hearing 

(see § 1033.920). 

Subpart D—Manufacturer and 

Remanufacturer Production Line 

Testing and Audit Programs 

§ 1033.301 Applicability. 

The requirements of this subpart of 

this part apply to manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers of locomotives certified 

under this part, with the following 

exceptions: 

(a) The requirements of §§ 1033.310 

1033.315, 1033.320, 1033.325, and 

1033.335 apply only to manufacturers of 

freshly manufactured locomotives or 

locomotive engines (including those 

used for repowering). We may also 

apply these requirements to 

remanufacturers of any locomotives for 

which there is reason to believe 

production problems exist that could 

affect emission performance. When we 

make a determination that production 

problems may exist that could affect 

emission performance, we will notify 

the remanufacturer(s). The requirements 

of §§ 1033.305, 1033.310, 1033.315, 

1033.320, 1033.325, and 1033.335 will 

apply as specified in the notice. 

(b) The requirements of § 1033.340 

apply only to remanufacturers. 

(c) As specified in § 1033.1(d), we 

may apply the requirements of this 

subpart to manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers that do not certify the 

locomotives. However, unless we 

specify otherwise, the requirements of 

this subpart apply to manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers that hold the 

certificates for the locomotives. 

§ 1033.305 General requirements. 

(a) Manufacturers (and 

remanufacturers, where applicable) are 

required to test production line 

locomotives using the test procedures 

specified in § 1033.315. While this 

subpart refers to locomotive testing, you 

may test locomotive engines instead of 

testing locomotives, unless we 

specifically require you to conduct 

production line testing on locomotives. 

If we determine that locomotive testing 

is required, we will notify you and will 

specify how to complete the testing 

(including specifying the time period in 

which you must complete the testing). 

(b) Remanufacturers are required to 

conduct audits according to the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16055 

requirements of § 1033.340 to ensure 

that remanufactured locomotives 

comply with the requirements of this 

part. 

(c) If you certify an engine family with 

carryover emission data, as described in 

§ 1033.235, 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. 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 

locomotives that have failed emission 

tests. 

(d) You may ask to use an alternate 

program for testing production-line 

locomotives. In your request, you must 

show us that the alternate program gives 

equal assurance that your locomotives 

meet the requirements of this part. If we 

approve your alternate program, we may 

waive some or all of this subpart’s 

requirements. 

§ 1033.310 Sample selection for testing. 

(a) At the start of each model year, 

begin randomly selecting locomotives 

from each engine family for production 

line testing at a rate of one percent. 

Make the selection of the test 

locomotive after it has been assembled. 

Perform the testing throughout the 

entire model year to the extent possible. 

(1) The required sample size for an 

engine family (provided that no engine 

tested fails to meet applicable emission 

standards) is the lesser of five tests per 

model year or one percent of projected 

annual production, with a minimum 

sample size for an engine family of one 

test per model year. See paragraph (d) 

of this section to determine the required 

number of test locomotives if any 

locomotives fail to comply with any 

standards. 

(2) You may elect to test additional 

locomotives. All additional locomotives 

must be tested in accordance with the 

applicable test procedures of this part. 

(b) You must assemble the test 

locomotives using the same production 

process that will be used for 

locomotives to be introduced into 

commerce. You may ask us to allow 

special assembly procedures for catalyst 

equipped locomotives. 

(c) Unless we approve it, you may not 

use any quality control, testing, or 

assembly procedures that you do not 

use during the production and assembly 

of all other locomotives of that family. 

This applies for any test locomotive or 

any portion of a locomotive, including 

engines, parts, and subassemblies. 

(d) If one or more locomotives fail a 

production line test, then you must test 

two additional locomotives from the 

next fifteen produced in that engine 

family for each locomotive that fails. For 

example, if you are required to test four 

locomotives under paragraph (a) of this 

section and the second locomotive fails 

to comply with one or more standards, 

then you must test two additional 

locomotives from the next fifteen 

produced in that engine family. If both 

of those locomotive pass all standards, 

you are required to test two additional 

locomotive. If they both pass, you are 

done with testing for that family for the 

year since you tested six locomotives 

(the four originally required plus the 

two additional locomotives). 

§ 1033.315 Test procedures. 

(a) Test procedures. Use the test 

procedures described in subpart F of 

this part, except as specified in this 

section. 

(1) You may ask to use test other 

procedures. We will approve your 

request if we determine that it is not 

possible to perform satisfactory testing 

using the specified procedures. We may 

also approve alternate test procedures 

under § 1033.305(d). 

(2) If you used test procedures other 

than those in subpart F of this part 

during certification for the engine 

family (other than alternate test 

procedures necessary for testing a 

development engine or a low hour 

engine instead of a low mileage 

locomotive), use the same test 

procedures for production line testing 

that you used in certification. 

(b) Modifying a test locomotive. Once 

an engine is selected for testing, you 

may adjust, repair, maintain, or modify 

it or check its emissions only if one of 

the following is true: 

(1) You document the need for doing 

so in your procedures for assembling 

and inspecting all your production 

engines and make the action routine for 

all the engines in the engine family. 

(2) This subpart otherwise specifically 

allows your action. 

(3) We approve your action in 

advance. 

(c) Adjustable parameters. (1) Confirm 

that adjustable parameters are set to 

values or positions that are within the 

range recommended to the ultimate 

purchaser. 

(2) We may require to be adjusted any 

adjustable parameter to any setting 

within the specified adjustable range of 

that parameter prior to the performance 

of any test. 

(d) Stabilizing emissions. You may 

stabilize emissions from the locomotives 

to be tested through service 

accumulation by running the engine 

through a typical duty cycle. Emissions 

are considered stabilized after 300 hours 

of operation. You may accumulate fewer 

hours, consistent with good engineering 

judgment. You may establish a green 

engine factor for each regulated 

pollutant for each engine family, instead 

of (or in combination with) 

accumulating actual operation, to be 

used in calculating emissions test 

results. You must obtain our approval 

prior to using a green engine factor. 

(e) Adjustment after shipment. If a 

locomotive is shipped to a facility other 

than the production facility for 

production line testing, and an 

adjustment or repair is necessary 

because of such shipment, you may 

perform the necessary adjustment or 

repair only after the initial test of the 

locomotive, unless we determine that 

the test would be impossible to perform 

or would permanently damage the 

locomotive. 

(f) Malfunctions. If a locomotive 

cannot complete the service 

accumulation or an emission test 

because of a malfunction, you may 

request that we authorize either the 

repair of that locomotive or its deletion 

from the test sequence. 

(g) Retesting. If you determine that 

any production line emission test of a 

locomotive is invalid, you must retest it 

in accordance with the requirements of 

this subpart. Report emission results 

from all tests to us, including test results 

you determined are invalid. You must 

also include a detailed explanation of 

the reasons for invalidating any test in 

the quarterly report required in 

§ 1033.325(e). In the event a retest is 

performed, you may ask us within ten 

days of the end of the production 

quarter for permission to substitute the 

after-repair test results for the original 

test results. We will respond to the 

request within ten working days of our 

receipt of the request. 

§ 1033.325 Calculation and reporting of 

test results. 

(a) Calculate initial test results using 

the applicable test procedure specified 

in § 1033.315(a). Include applicable 

non-deterioration adjustments such as a 

green engine factor or regeneration 

adjustment factor. Round the results to 

the number of decimal places in the 

applicable emission standard expressed 

to one additional significant figure. 

(b) If you conduct multiple tests on 

any locomotives, calculate final test 

results by summing the initial test 

results derived in paragraph (a) of this 

section for each test locomotive, 

dividing by the number of tests 

conducted on the locomotive, and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16056 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

rounding to the same number of decimal 

places in the applicable standard 

expressed to one additional significant 

figure. 

(c) Calculate the final test results for 

each test locomotive by applying the 

appropriate deterioration factors, 

derived in the certification process for 

the engine family, to the final test 

results, and rounding to the same 

number of decimal places in the 

applicable standard expressed to one 

additional significant figure. 

(d) If, subsequent to an initial failure 

of a production line test, the average of 

the test results for the failed locomotive 

and the two additional locomotives 

tested, is greater than any applicable 

emission standard or FEL, the engine 

family is deemed to be in noncompliance with applicable emission 

standards, and you must notify us 

within ten working days of such 

noncompliance. 

(e) Within 45 calendar days of the end 

of each quarter, you must send to the 

Designated Compliance Officer a report 

with the following information: 

(1) The location and description of the 

emission test facilities which you used 

to conduct your testing. 

(2) Total production and sample size 

for each engine family tested. 

(3) The applicable standards against 

which each engine family was tested. 

(4) For each test conducted, include 

all of the following: 

(i) A description of the test 

locomotive, including: 

(A) Configuration and engine family 

identification. 

(B) Year, make, and build date. 

(C) Engine identification number. 

(D) Number of megawatt-hours (or 

miles if applicable) of service 

accumulated on locomotive prior to 

testing. 

(E) Description of green engine factor; 

how it is determined and how it is 

applied. 

(ii) Location(s) where service 

accumulation was conducted and 

description of accumulation procedure 

and schedule, if applicable. 

(iii) Test number, date, test procedure 

used, initial test results before and after 

rounding, and final test results for all 

production line emission tests 

conducted, whether valid or invalid, 

and the reason for invalidation of any 

test results, if applicable. 

(iv) A complete description of any 

adjustment, modification, repair, 

preparation, maintenance, and testing 

which was performed on the test 

locomotive, has not been reported 

pursuant to any other paragraph of this 

subpart, and will not be performed on 

other production locomotives. 

(v) Any other information we may ask 

you to add to your written report so we 

can determine whether your new 

engines conform with the requirements 

of this subpart. 

(5) For each failed locomotive as 

defined in § 1033.335(a), a description 

of the remedy and test results for all 

retests as required by § 1033.345(g). 

(6) The following signed statement 

and endorsement by an authorized 

representative of your company: 

We submit this report under sections 208 

and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our 

production-line testing conformed 

completely with the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 1033. We have not changed production 

processes or quality-control procedures for 

the test locomotives in a way that might 

affect emission controls. All the information 

in this report is true and accurate to the best 

of my knowledge. I know of the penalties for 

violating the Clean Air Act and the 

regulations. (Authorized Company 

Representative) 

§ 1033.330 Maintenance of records; 

submittal of information. 

(a) You must establish, maintain, and 

retain the following adequately 

organized and indexed test records: 

(1) A description of all equipment 

used to test locomotives. The equipment 

requirements in subpart F of this part 

apply to tests performed under this 

subpart. Maintain these records for each 

test cell that can be used to perform 

emission testing under this subpart. 

(2) Individual test records for each 

production line test or audit including: 

(i) The date, time, and location of 

each test or audit. 

(ii) The method by which the green 

engine factor was calculated or the 

number of hours of service accumulated 

on the test locomotive when the test 

began and ended. 

(iii) The names of all supervisory 

personnel involved in the conduct of 

the production line test or audit; 

(iv) A record and description of any 

adjustment, repair, preparation or 

modification performed on test 

locomotives, giving the date, associated 

time, justification, name(s) of the 

authorizing personnel, and names of all 

supervisory personnel responsible for 

the conduct of the action. 

(v) If applicable, the date the 

locomotive was shipped from the 

assembly plant, associated storage 

facility or port facility, and the date the 

locomotive was received at the testing 

facility. 

(vi) A complete record of all emission 

tests or audits performed under to this 

subpart (except tests performed directly 

by us), including all individual 

worksheets and/or other documentation 

relating to each test, or exact copies 

thereof, according to the record 

requirements specified in subpart F of 

this part and 40 CFR part 1065. 

(vii) A brief description of any 

significant events during testing not 

otherwise described under this 

paragraph (a)(2), commencing with the 

test locomotive selection process and 

including such extraordinary events as 

engine damage during shipment. 

(b) Keep all records required to be 

maintained under this subpart for a 

period of eight years after completion of 

all testing. Store these records in any 

format and on any media, as long as you 

can promptly provide to us organized, 

written records in English if we ask for 

them and all the information is retained. 

(c) Send us the following information 

with regard to locomotive production if 

we ask for it: 

(1) Projected production for each 

configuration within each engine family 

for which certification has been 

requested and/or approved. 

(2) Number of locomotives, by 

configuration and assembly plant, 

scheduled for production. 

(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. 

(e) Send all reports, submissions, 

notifications, and requests for approval 

made under this subpart to the 

Designated Compliance Officer using an 

approved format. 

(f) You must keep a copy of all reports 

submitted under this subpart. 

§ 1033.335 Compliance with criteria for 

production line testing. 

There are two types of potential 

failures: failure of an individual 

locomotive to comply with the 

standards, and a failure of an engine 

family to comply with the standards. 

(a) A failed locomotive is one whose 

final test results pursuant to 

§ 1033.325(c), for one or more of the 

applicable pollutants, exceed an 

applicable emission standard or FEL. 

(b) An engine family is deemed to be 

in noncompliance, for purposes of this 

subpart, if at any time throughout the 

model year, the average of an initial 

failed locomotive and the two 

additional locomotives tested, is greater 

than any applicable emission standard 

or FEL. 

§ 1033.340 Remanufactured locomotives: 

installation audit requirements. 

The section specifies the requirements 

for certifying remanufacturers to audit 

the remanufacture of locomotives 

covered by their certificates of 

conformity for proper components, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16057 

component settings and component 

installations on randomly chosen 

locomotives in an engine family. 

(a) You must ensure that all emission 

related components are properly 

installed on the locomotive and are set 

to the proper specification as indicated 

in your instructions. You may summit 

audits performed by the owners or 

operators of the locomotives, provided 

the audits are performed in accordance 

with the provisions of this section. 

(b) Audit at least five percent of your 

annual sales per model year per installer 

or ten per engine family per installer, 

whichever is less. You must perform 

more audits if there are any failures. 

Randomly select the locomotives to be 

audited after the remanufacture is 

complete. We may allow you to select 

locomotives prior to the completion of 

the remanufacture, if the preselection 

would not have the potential to affect 

the manner in which the locomotive 

was remanufactured (e.g., where the 

installer is not aware of the selection 

prior to the completion of the 

remanufacture). 

(c) The remanufactured locomotive 

may accumulate no more than 10,000 

miles prior to an audit. 

(d) A locomotive fails if any emission 

related components are found to be 

improperly installed, improperly 

adjusted or incorrectly used. 

(e) If a remanufactured locomotive 

fails an audit, then you must audit two 

additional locomotives from the next 

ten remanufactured in that engine 

family by that installer. 

(f) An engine family is determined to 

have failed an audit, if at any time 

during the model year, you determine 

that the three locomotives audited are 

found to have had any improperly 

installed, improperly adjusted or 

incorrectly used components. You must 

notify us within 2 working days of a 

determination of an engine family audit 

failure. 

(g) Within 30 calendar days of the end 

of each quarter, each remanufacturer 

must send the Designated Compliance 

Officer a report which includes the 

following information: 

(1) The location and description of 

your audit facilities which were utilized 

to conduct auditing reported pursuant 

to this section; 

(2) Total production and sample size 

for each engine family; 

(3) The applicable standards and/or 

FELs against which each engine family 

was audited; 

(4) For each audit conducted: 

(i) A description of the audited 

locomotive, including: 

(A) Configuration and engine family 

identification; 

(B) Year, make, build date, and 

remanufacture date; and 

(C) Engine identification number; 

(ii) Any other information we request 

relevant to the determination whether 

the new locomotives being 

remanufactured do in fact conform with 

the regulations with respect to which 

the certificate of conformity was issued; 

(5) For each failed locomotive as 

defined in paragraph (d) of this section, 

a description of the remedy as required 

by § 1033.345(g); 

(6) The following signed statement 

and endorsement by your authorized 

representative: 

We submit this report under sections 

208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our 

production-line auditing conformed 

completely with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 1033. We have not changed 

production processes or quality-control 

procedures for the audited locomotives 

in a way that might affect emission 

controls. All the information in this 

report is true and accurate to the best of 

my knowledge. I know of the penalties 

for violating the Clean Air Act and the 

regulations. (Authorized Company 

Representative) 

§ 1033.345 Suspension and revocation of 

certificates of conformity. 

(a) A certificate can be suspended for 

an individual locomotive as follows: 

(1) The certificate of conformity is 

automatically suspended for any 

locomotive that fails a production line 

test pursuant to § 1033.335(a), effective 

from the time the testing of that 

locomotive is completed. 

(2) The certificate of conformity is 

automatically suspended for any 

locomotive that fails an audit pursuant 

to § 1033.340(d), effective from the time 

that auditing of that locomotive is 

completed. 

(b) A certificate can be suspended for 

an engine family as follows: 

(1) We may suspend the certificate of 

conformity for an engine family that is 

in noncompliance pursuant to 

§ 1033.335(b), thirty days after the 

engine family is deemed to be in 

noncompliance. 

(2) We may suspend the certificate of 

conformity for an engine family that is 

determined to have failed an audit 

pursuant to § 1033.340(f). This 

suspension will not occur before thirty 

days after the engine family is deemed 

to be in noncompliance. 

(c) If we suspend your certificate of 

conformity for an engine family, the 

suspension may apply to all facilities 

producing engines from an engine 

family, even if you find noncompliant 

engines only at one facility. 

(d) We may revoke a certificate of 

conformity for any engine family in 

whole or in part if: 

(1) You fail to comply with any of the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2) You submit false or incomplete 

information in any report or information 

provided to us under this subpart. 

(3) You render inaccurate any test 

data submitted under this subpart. 

(4) An EPA enforcement officer is 

denied the opportunity to conduct 

activities authorized in this subpart. 

(5) An EPA enforcement officer is 

unable to conduct authorized activities 

for any reason. 

(e) We will notify you in writing of 

any suspension or revocation of a 

certificate of conformity in whole or in 

part; a suspension or revocation is 

effective upon receipt of such 

notification or thirty days from the time 

an engine family is deemed to be in 

noncompliance under §§ 1033.325(d), 

1033.335(a), 1033.335(b), or 1033.340(f) 

is made, whichever is earlier, except 

that the certificate is immediately 

suspended with respect to any failed 

locomotives as provided for in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(f) We may revoke a certificate of 

conformity for an engine family when 

the certificate has been suspended 

under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section 

if the remedy is one requiring a design 

change or changes to the locomotive, 

engine and/or emission control system 

as described in the application for 

certification of the affected engine 

family. 

(g) Once a certificate has been 

suspended for a failed locomotive, as 

provided for in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you must take all the following 

actions before the certificate is 

reinstated for that failed locomotive: 

(1) Remedy the nonconformity. 

(2) Demonstrate that the locomotive 

conforms to applicable standards or 

family emission limits by retesting, or 

reauditing if applicable, the locomotive 

in accordance with this part. 

(3) Submit a written report to us after 

successful completion of testing (or 

auditing, if applicable) on the failed 

locomotive, which contains a 

description of the remedy and testing 

(or auditing) results for each locomotive 

in addition to other information that 

may be required by this part. 

(h) Once a certificate for a failed 

engine family has been suspended 

pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this 

section, you must take the following 

actions before we will consider 

reinstating the certificate: 

(1) Submit a written report to us 

identifying the reason for the 

noncompliance of the locomotives, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16058 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

describing the remedy, including a 

description of any quality control 

measures you will use to prevent future 

occurrences of the problem, and stating 

the date on which the remedies will be 

implemented. 

(2) Demonstrate that the engine family 

for which the certificate of conformity 

has been suspended does in fact comply 

with the regulations of this part by 

testing (or auditing) locomotives 

selected from normal production runs of 

that engine family. Such testing (or 

auditing) must comply with the 

provisions of this subpart. If you elect 

to continue testing (or auditing) 

individual locomotives after suspension 

of a certificate, the certificate is 

reinstated for any locomotive actually 

determined to be in conformance with 

the applicable standards or family 

emission limits through testing (or 

auditing) in accordance with the 

applicable test procedures, provided 

that we have not revoked the certificate 

under paragraph (f) of this section. 

(i) If the certificate has been revoked 

for an engine family, you must take the 

following actions before we will issue a 

certificate that would allow you to 

continue introduction into commerce of 

a modified version of that family: 

(1) If we determine that the change(s) 

in locomotive design may have an effect 

on emission deterioration, we will 

notify you within five working days 

after receipt of the report in paragraph 

(h) of this section, whether subsequent 

testing/auditing under this subpart will 

be sufficient to evaluate the change(s) or 

whether additional testing (or auditing) 

will be required. 

(2) After implementing the change or 

changes intended to remedy the 

nonconformity, you must demonstrate 

that the modified engine family does in 

fact conform with the regulations of this 

part by testing locomotives (or auditing 

for remanufactured locomotives) 

selected from normal production runs of 

that engine family. When both of these 

requirements are met, we will reissue 

the certificate or issue a new certificate. 

If this subsequent testing (or auditing) 

reveals failing data the revocation 

remains in effect. 

(j) At any time subsequent to an initial 

suspension of a certificate of conformity 

for a test or audit locomotive pursuant 

to paragraph (a) of this section, but not 

later than 30 days (or such other period 

as we may allow) after the notification, 

our decision to suspend or revoke a 

certificate of conformity in whole or in 

part pursuant to paragraphs (b), (c), or 

(f) of this section, you may request a 

hearing as to whether the tests or audits 

have been properly conducted or any 

sampling methods have been properly 

applied. (See § 1033.920.) 

(k) Any suspension of a certificate of 

conformity under paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section will be made 

only after you have been offered an 

opportunity for a hearing conducted in 

accordance with § 1033.920. It will not 

apply to locomotives no longer in your 

possession. 

(l) If we suspend, revoke, or void a 

certificate of conformity, and you 

believe that our decision was based on 

erroneous information, you may ask us 

to reconsider our decision before 

requesting a hearing. If you demonstrate 

to our satisfaction that our decision was 

based on erroneous information, we will 

reinstate the certificate. 

(m) We may conditionally reinstate 

the certificate for that family so that you 

do not have to store non-test 

locomotives while conducting 

subsequent testing or auditing of the 

noncomplying family subject to the 

following condition: you must commit 

to recall all locomotives of that family 

produced from the time the certificate is 

conditionally reinstated if the family 

fails subsequent testing, or auditing if 

applicable, and must commit to remedy 

any nonconformity at no expense to the 

owner. 

Subpart E—In-use Testing 

§ 1033.401 Applicability. 

The requirements of this subpart are 

applicable to certificate holders for 

locomotives subject to the provisions of 

this part. These requirements may also 

be applied to other manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers as specified in 

§ 1033.1(d). 

§ 1033.405 General provisions. 

(a) Each year, we will identify engine 

families and configurations within 

families that you must test according to 

the requirements of this section. 

(1) We may require you to test one 

engine family each year for which you 

have received a certificate of 

conformity. If you are a manufacturer 

that holds certificates of conformity for 

both freshly manufactured and 

remanufactured locomotive engine 

families, we may require you to test one 

freshly manufactured engine family and 

one remanufactured engine family. We 

may require you to test additional 

engine families if we have reason to 

believe that locomotives in such 

families do not comply with emission 

standards in use. 

(2) For engine families of less than 10 

locomotives per year, no in-use testing 

will be required, unless we have reason 

to believe that those engine families are 

not complying with the applicable 

emission standards in use. 

(b) Test a sample of in-use 

locomotives from an engine family, as 

specified in § 1033.415. We will use 

these data, and any other data available 

to us, to determine the compliance 

status of classes of locomotives, 

including for purposes of recall under 

40 CFR part 1068, and whether remedial 

action is appropriate. 

§ 1033.410 In-use test procedure. 

(a) You must test the complete 

locomotives; you may not test engines 

that are not installed in locomotives at 

the time of testing. 

(b) Test the locomotive according to 

the test procedures outlined in subpart 

F of this part, except as provided in this 

section. 

(c) Use the same test procedures for 

in-use testing as were used for 

certification, except for cases in which 

certification testing was not conducted 

with a locomotive, but with a 

development engine or other engine. In 

such cases, we will specify deviations 

from the certification test procedures as 

appropriate. We may allow or require 

other alternate procedures, with 

advance approval. 

(d) Set all adjustable locomotive or 

engine parameters to values or positions 

that are within the range specified in the 

certificate of conformity. We may 

require you to set these parameters to 

specific values. 

(e) We may waive portions of the 

applicable test procedure that are not 

necessary to determine in-use 

compliance. 

§ 1033.415 General testing requirements. 

(a) Number of locomotives to be 

tested. Determine the number of 

locomotives to be tested by the 

following method: 

(1) Test a minimum of 2 locomotives 

per engine family, except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You 

must test additional locomotives if any 

locomotives fail to meet any standard. 

Test 2 more locomotives for each failing 

locomotive, but stop testing if the total 

number of locomotives tested equals 10. 

(2) If an engine family has been 

certified using carry over emission data 

from a family that has been previously 

tested under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section (and we have not ordered or 

begun to negotiate remedial action of 

that family), you need to test only one 

locomotive per engine family. If that 

locomotive fails to meet applicable 

standards for any pollutant, testing for 

that engine family must be conducted as 

outlined under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16059 

(3) You may ask us to allow you to 

test more locomotives than the 

minimum number described above or 

may concede failure before testing 10 

locomotives. 

(b) Compliance criteria. We will 

consider failure rates, average emission 

levels and the existence of any defects 

among other factors in determining 

whether to pursue remedial action. We 

may order a recall pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 1068 before testing reaches the 

tenth locomotive. 

(c) Collection of in-use locomotives. 

Procure in-use locomotives that have 

been operated for 50 to 75 percent of the 

locomotive’s useful life for testing under 

this subpart. Complete testing required 

by this section for any engine family 

before useful life of the locomotives in 

the engine family passes. 

(Note: § 1033.820 specifies that railroads 

must make reasonable efforts to enable you 

to perform this testing.) 

§ 1033.420 Maintenance, procurement and 

testing of in-use locomotives. 

(a) A test locomotive must have a 

maintenance history that is 

representative of actual in-use 

conditions, and identical or equivalent 

to your recommended emission-related 

maintenance requirements. 

(1) When procuring locomotives for 

in-use testing, ask the end users about 

the accumulated usage, maintenance, 

operating conditions, and storage of the 

test locomotives. 

(2) Your selection of test locomotives 

is subject to our approval. Maintain the 

information you used to procure 

locomotives for in-use testing in the 

same manner as is required in 

§ 1033.250. 

(b) You may perform minimal set-tospec maintenance on a test locomotive 

before conducting in-use testing. 

Maintenance may include only that 

which is listed in the owner’s 

instructions for locomotives with the 

amount of service and age of the 

acquired test locomotive. Maintain 

documentation of all maintenance and 

adjustments. 

(c) If the locomotive selected for 

testing is equipped with emission 

diagnostics as described in § 1033.110 

and the MIL is illuminated, you may 

read the code and repair the 

malfunction to the degree that an 

owner/operator would be required to 

repair the malfunction under 

§ 1033.815. 

(d) Results of at least one valid set of 

emission tests using the test procedure 

described in subpart F of this part are 

required for each in-use locomotive. 

(e) If in-use testing results show that 

an in-use locomotive fails to comply 

with any applicable emission standards, 

you must determine the reason for 

noncompliance and report your findings 

in the quarterly in-use test result report 

described in § 1033.425. 

§ 1033.425 In-use test program reporting 

requirements. 

(a) Within 90 days of completion of 

testing, send us all emission test results 

generated from the in-use testing 

program. Report all of the following 

information for each locomotive tested: 

(1) Engine family, and configuration. 

(2) Locomotive and engine models. 

(3) Locomotive and engine serial 

numbers. 

(4) Date of manufacture or 

remanufacture, as applicable. 

(5) Megawatt-hours of use (or miles, 

as applicable). 

(6) Date and time of each test attempt. 

(7) Results of all emission testing. 

(8) Results (if any) of each voided or 

failed test attempt. 

(9) Summary of all maintenance and/ 

or adjustments performed. 

(10) Summary of all modifications 

and/or repairs. 

(11) Determinations of 

noncompliance. 

(12) The following signed statement 

and endorsement by an authorized 

representative of your company. 

We submit this report under sections 

208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our 

in-use testing conformed completely 

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 

1033. All the information in this report 

is true and accurate to the best of my 

knowledge. I know of the penalties for 

violating the Clean Air Act and the 

regulations. (Authorized Company 

Representative) 

(b) Report to us within 90 days of 

completion of testing the following 

information for each engine family 

tested: 

(1) The serial numbers of all 

locomotives that were excluded from 

the test sample because they did not 

meet the maintenance requirements of 

§ 1033.420. 

(2) The owner of each locomotive 

identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section (or other entity responsible for 

the maintenance of the locomotive). 

(3) The specific reasons why the 

locomotives were excluded from the test 

sample. 

(c) Submit the information outlined in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

electronically using an approved format. 

We may exempt you from this 

requirement upon written request with 

supporting justification. 

(d) Send all testing reports and 

requests for approvals to the Designated 

Compliance Officer. 

Subpart F—Test Procedures 

§ 1033.501 General provisions. 

(a) Except as specified in this subpart, 

use the equipment and procedures for 

compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR 

part 1065 to determine whether your 

locomotives meet the duty-cycle 

emission standards in § 1033.101. Use 

the applicable duty cycles specified in 

this subpart. Measure emissions of all 

the pollutants we regulate in § 1033.101. 

The general test procedure is the 

procedure specified in 40 CFR part 1065 

for steady-state discrete-mode cycles. 

However, if you use the optional 

ramped modal cycle in § 1033.514, 

follow the procedures for ramped modal 

testing in 40 CFR part 1065. The 

following exceptions from the 1065 

procedures apply: 

(1) You must average power and 

emissions over the sampling periods 

specified in this subpart for both 

discrete-mode testing and ramped 

modal testing. 

(2) The test cycle is considered to be 

steady-state with respect to operator 

demand rather than engine speed and 

load. 

(3) The provisions related to engine 

mapping and duty cycle generation (40 

CFR 1065.510 and 1065.512) are not 

applicable to testing of complete 

locomotives or locomotive engines 

because locomotive operation and 

locomotive duty cycles are based on 

operator demand via locomotive notch 

settings rather than engine speeds and 

loads. The cycle validation criteria (40 

CFR 1065.514) are not applicable to 

testing of complete locomotives but do 

apply for dynamometer testing of 

engines. 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) This part allows (with certain 

limits) testing of either a complete 

locomotive or a separate uninstalled 

engine. When testing a locomotive, you 

must test the complete locomotive in its 

in-use configuration, except that you 

may disconnect the power output and 

fuel input for the purpose of testing. 

(d) For locomotives subject to smoke 

standards, measure smoke emissions 

using the procedures in § 1033.520. 

(e) Use the applicable fuel listed in 40 

CFR part 1065, subpart H, to perform 

valid tests. 

(1) For diesel-fueled locomotives, use 

the appropriate diesel fuel specified in 

40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, for 

emission testing. The applicable diesel 

test fuel is either the ultra low-sulfur 

diesel or low-sulfur diesel fuel, as 

specified in § 1033.101. Identify the test 

fuel in your application for certification 

and ensure that the fuel inlet label is 

consistent with your selection of the test 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16060 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

fuel (see §§ 1033.101 and 1033.135). For 

example, do not test with ultra lowsulfur diesel fuel if you intend to label 

your locomotives to allow use of diesel 

fuel with sulfur concentrations up to 

500 ppm. 

(2) You may ask to use as a test fuel 

commercially available diesel fuel 

similar but not identical to the 

applicable fuel specified in 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart H. If your locomotive uses 

sulfur-sensitive technology, you may 

not use an in-use fuel that has a lower 

sulfur content than the range specified 

for the otherwise applicable test fuel in 

40 CFR part 1065. If your locomotive 

does not use sulfur-sensitive 

technology, we may allow you to use an 

in-use fuel that has a lower sulfur 

content than the range specified for the 

otherwise applicable test fuel in 40 CFR 

part 1065, but may require that you 

correct PM emissions to account for the 

sulfur differences. 

(3) For service accumulation, use the 

test fuel or any commercially available 

fuel that is representative of the fuel that 

in-use locomotives will use. 

(f) See § 1033.504 for information 

about allowable ambient testing 

conditions for testing. 

(g) You may use special or alternate 

procedures to the extent we allow as 

them under 40 CFR 1065.10. In some 

cases, we allow you to use procedures 

that are less precise or less accurate than 

the specified procedures if they do not 

affect your ability to show that your 

locomotives comply with the applicable 

emission standards. This generally 

requires emission levels to be far 

enough below the applicable emission 

standards so that any errors caused by 

greater imprecision or inaccuracy do not 

affect your ability to state 

unconditionally that the locomotives 

meet all applicable emission standards. 

(h) This subpart is addressed to you 

as a manufacturer/remanufacturer, but it 

applies equally to anyone who does 

testing for you, and to us when we 

perform testing to determine if your 

locomotives meet emission standards. 

(i) We may also perform other testing 

as allowed by the Clean Air Act. 

(j) For passenger locomotives that can 

generate hotel power from the main 

propulsion engine, the locomotive must 

comply with the emission standards 

when in either hotel or non-hotel 

setting. 

§ 1033.503 Auxiliary power units. 

If your locomotive is equipped with 

an auxiliary power unit (APU) that 

operates during an idle shutdown mode, 

you must account for the APU’s 

emissions rates as specified in this 

section. 

(a) Adjust the locomotive main 

engine’s idle emission rate (g/hr) as 

specified in § 1033.520. Add the APU 

emission rate (g/hr) that you determine 

under paragraph (b) of this section. Use 

the locomotive main engine’s idle 

power as specified in § 1033.520. 

(b) Determine the representative 

emission rate for the APU using one of 

the following methods. 

(1) Installed APU tested separately. If 

you separately measure emission rates 

(g/hr) for each pollutant from the APU 

installed in the locomotive, you may use 

the measured emissions rates (g/hr) as 

the locomotive’s idle emissions rates 

when the locomotive is shutdown and 

the APU is operating. For all testing 

other than in-use testing, apply 

appropriate deterioration factors to the 

measured emission rates. You may ask 

to carryover APU emission data for a 

previous test, or use data for the same 

APU installed on locomotives in 

another engine family. 

(2) Uninstalled APU tested separately. 

If you separately measure emission rates 

(g/hr) over an appropriate duty-cycle for 

each pollutant from the APU when it is 

not installed in the locomotive, you may 

use the measured emissions rates (g/hr) 

as the locomotive’s idle emissions rates 

when the locomotive is shutdown and 

the APU is operating. For the purpose 

of this paragraph (2), an appropriate 

duty-cycle is one that approximates the 

APU engine’s cycle-weighted power 

when operating in the locomotive. 

Apply appropriate deterioration factors 

to the measured emission rates. You 

may ask to carryover APU emission data 

for a previous test, or use data for the 

same APU installed on locomotives in 

another engine family. 

(3) APU engine certification data. If 

the engine used for the APU has been 

certified to EPA emission standards you 

may calculate the APU’s emissions 

based upon existing EPA-certification 

information about the APU’s engine. In 

this case, calculate the APU’s emissions 

as follows: 

(i) For each pollutant determine the 

brake-specific standard/FEL to which 

the APU engine was originally EPAcertified. 

(ii) Determine the APU engine’s cycleweighted power when operating in the 

locomotive. 

(iii) Multiply each of the APU’s 

applicable brake-specific standards/ 

FELs by the APU engine’s cycleweighted power. The results are the 

APU’s emissions rates (in g/hr). 

(iv) Use these emissions rates as the 

locomotive’s idle emissions rates when 

the locomotive is shutdown and the 

APU is running. Do not apply a 

deterioration factor to these values. 

(4) Other. You may ask us to approve 

an alternative means to account for APU 

emissions. 

§ 1033.504 Ambient conditions. 

This section specifies the allowable 

ambient conditions of temperature, 

pressure, and humidity under which 

testing may be performed to determine 

compliance with the emission standards 

of § 1068.101. Manufacturers/ 

remanufacturers may ask to perform 

testing at conditions other than those 

allowed by this section. We will allow 

such testing provided it does not affect 

your ability to demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable standards. See 

§§ 1033.101 and 1033.115 for more 

information about the requirements that 

apply at other conditions. 

(a) Temperature. Testing may be 

performed with ambient temperatures 

from 15.5 °C (60 °F) to 40.5 °C (105 °F). 

Do not correct emissions for 

temperature effects within this range. If 

we allow you to perform testing at lower 

ambient temperatures, you must correct 

NOX emissions for temperature effects, 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. For example, if the intake air 

temperature (at the manifold) is lower at 

the test temperature than at 15.5 °C, you 

generally will need to adjust your 

measured NOX emissions upward to 

account for the effect of the lower intake 

air temperature. However, if you 

maintain a constant manifold air 

temperature, you will generally not 

need to correct emissions. 

(b) Altitude/pressure. Testing may be 

performed with ambient pressures from 

88.000 kPa to 103.325 kPa. This is 

intended to correspond to altitudes up 

to 4000 feet above sea level. Do not 

correct emissions for pressure effects 

within this range. 

(c) Humidity. Testing may be 

performed with any ambient humidity 

level. Correct NOX emissions as 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.670. Do not 

correct any other emissions for 

humidity effects. 

(d) Wind. If you test outdoors, use 

good engineering judgment to ensure 

that excessive wind does not affect your 

emission measurements. Winds are 

excessive if they disturb the size, shape, 

or location of the exhaust plume in the 

region where exhaust samples are 

drawn or where the smoke plume is 

measured, or otherwise cause any 

dilution of the exhaust. Tests may be 

conducted if wind shielding is placed 

adjacent to the exhaust plume to 

prevent bending, dispersion, or any 

other distortion of the exhaust plume as 

it passes through the optical unit or 

through the sample probe. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16061 

§ 1033.510 Discrete-mode steady-state 

emission tests of locomotives and 

locomotive engines. 

This section describes how to test 

locomotives at each notch setting so that 

emissions can be weighted according to 

either the line-haul duty cycle or the 

switch duty cycle. The locomotive test 

cycle consists of a warm-up followed by 

a sequence of nominally steady-state 

discrete test modes, as described in 

Table 1 of this section. The test modes 

are steady-state with respect to operator 

demand, which is the notch setting for 

the locomotive. Engine speeds and loads 

are not necessarily steady-state. 

(a) Follow the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 1065, subpart F for general pre-test 

procedures (including engine and 

sampling system pre-conditioning 

which is included as engine warm-up). 

You may operate the engine in any way 

you choose to warm it up prior to 

beginning the sample preconditioning 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065. 

(b) Begin the test by operating the 

locomotive over the pre-test portion of 

the cycle specified in Table 1 of this 

section. 

(c) Measure emissions during the rest 

of the test cycle. 

(1) Each test mode begins when the 

operator demand to the locomotive or 

engine is set to the applicable notch 

setting. 

(2) Start measuring gaseous emissions, 

power, and fuel consumption at the start 

of the test mode A and continue until 

the completion of test mode 8. 

(i) The sample period over which 

emissions for the mode are averaged 

generally begins when the operator 

demand is changed to start the test 

mode and ends within 5 seconds of the 

minimum sampling time for the test 

mode is reached. However, you need to 

shift the sampling period to account for 

sample system residence times. Follow 

the provisions of 40 CFR 1065.308 and 

1065.309 to time align emission and 

work measurements. 

(ii) The sample period is 300 seconds 

for all test modes except mode 10. The 

sample period for test mode 8 is 600 

seconds. 

(3) If gaseous emissions are sampled 

using a batch-sampling method, begin 

proportional sampling at the beginning 

of each sampling period and terminate 

sampling once the minimum time in 

each test mode is reached, ± 5 seconds. 

(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test 

at the start of the test mode A. Continue 

collecting smoke data until the 

completion of test mode 8. Refer to 

§ 1033.101 to determine applicability of 

smoke testing and § 1033.515 for details 

on how to conduct a smoke test. 

(5) Begin proportional sampling of PM 

emissions at the beginning of each 

sampling period and terminate sampling 

once the minimum time in each test 

mode is reached, ± 5 seconds. 

(6) Proceed through each test mode in 

the order specified in Table 1 of this 

section until the locomotive test cycle is 

completed. 

(7) At the end of each numbered test 

mode, you may continue to operate 

sampling and dilution systems to allow 

corrections for the sampling system’s 

response time. 

(8) Following the completion of Mode 

8, conduct the post sampling procedures 

in § 1065.530. Note that cycle validation 

criteria do not apply to testing of 

complete locomotives. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.510.—LOCOMOTIVE TEST CYCLE

Test mode Notch setting Time in mode 

(minutes) 1 Sample averaging period for emissions 1

Pre-test idle .............................. Lowest idle setting .................. 10 to 15 .................................. Not applicable 

A ............................................... Low idle 2 ................................ 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

B ............................................... Normal idle ............................. 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

C ............................................... Dynamic brake 2 ..................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

1 ............................................... Notch 1 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

2 ............................................... Notch 2 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

3 ............................................... Notch 3 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

4 ............................................... Notch 4 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

5 ............................................... Notch 5 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

6 ............................................... Notch 6 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

7 ............................................... Notch 7 ................................... 5 to 10 .................................... 300 ± 5 seconds 

8 ............................................... Notch 8 ................................... 10 to 15 .................................. 600 ± 5 seconds 

1The time in each notch and sample averaging period may be extended as needed to allow for collection of a sufficiently large PM sample. 2Omit if not so equipped. 

(f) There are two approaches for 

sampling PM emissions during discretemode steady-state testing as described 

in this paragraph (f). 

(1) Engines certified to a PM 

standard/FEL 0.05 g/bhp-hr. Use a 

separate PM filter sample for each test 

mode of the locomotive test cycle 

according to the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this 

section. You may ask to use a shorter 

sampling period if the total mass 

expected to be collected would cause 

unacceptably high pressure drop across 

the filter before reaching the end of the 

required sampling time. We will not 

allow sampling times less than 60 

seconds. When we conduct locomotive 

emission tests, we will adhere to the 

time limits for each of the numbered 

modes in Table 1 of § 1033.510. 

(2) Engines certified to a PM 

standard/FEL < 0.05 g/bhp-hr. (i) You 

may use separate PM filter samples for 

each test mode as described in 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section; however, 

we recommend that you do not do so. 

The low rate of sample filter loading 

will result in very long sampling times 

and the large number of filter samples 

may induce uncertainty stack-up that 

will lead to unacceptable PM 

measurement accuracy. Instead, we 

recommend that you measure PM 

emissions as specified in paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) You may use a single PM filter for 

sampling PM over all of the test modes 

of the locomotive test cycle as specified 

in this paragraph. Vary the sample time 

to be proportional the applicable linehaul or switch weighting factors 

specified in § 1033.520 for each mode. 

The minimum sampling time for each 

mode is 400 seconds multiplied by the 

weighting factor. For example, for a 

mode with a weighting factor of 0.030, 

the minimum sampling time is 12.0 

seconds. PM sampling in each mode 

must be proportional to engine exhaust 

flow as specified in 40 CFR part 1065. 

Begin proportional sampling of PM 

emissions at the beginning of each test 

mode as is specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section. End the sampling period 

for each test mode so that sampling 

times are proportional to the weighting 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16062 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

factors for the applicable duty cycles. If 

necessary, you may extend the time 

limit for each of the test modes beyond 

the sampling times in Table 1 of 

§ 1033.510 to increase the sampled mass 

of PM emissions or to account for 

proper weighting of the PM emission 

sample over the entire cycle, using good 

engineering judgment. 

(g) This paragraph (g) describes how 

to test locomotive engines when not 

installed in a locomotive. Note that the 

test procedures for dynamometer engine 

testing of locomotive engines are 

intended to produce emission 

measurements that are essentially 

identical to emission measurements 

produced during testing of complete 

locomotives using the same engine 

configuration. The following 

requirements apply for all engine tests: 

(1) Specify a second-by-second set of 

engine speed and load points that are 

representative of in-use locomotive 

operation for each of the set-points of 

the locomotive test cycle described in 

Table 1 of § 1033.510, including 

transitions from one notch to the next. 

This is your reference cycle for 

validating your cycle. You may ignore 

points between the end of the sampling 

period for one mode and the point at 

which you change the notch setting to 

begin the next mode. 

(2) Keep the temperature of the air 

entering the engine after any charge air 

cooling to within5 °C of the typical 

intake air temperature when the engine 

is operated in the locomotive under 

similar ambient conditions. 

(3) Proceed with testing as specified 

for testing complete locomotives as 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of 

this section. 

§ 1033.514 Alternative ramped modal 

cycles. 

(a) Locomotive testing over a ramped 

modal cycle is intended to improve 

measurement accuracy at low emission 

levels by allowing the use of batch 

sampling of PM and gaseous emissions 

over multiple locomotive notch settings. 

Ramped modal cycles combine multiple 

test modes of a discrete-mode steadystate into a single sample period. Time 

in notch is varied to be proportional to 

weighting factors. The ramped modal 

cycle for line-haul locomotives is shown 

in Table 1 of this section. The ramped 

modal cycle for switch locomotives is 

shown in Table 2 of this section. Both 

ramped modal cycles consist of a warmup followed by three test phases that are 

each weighted in a manner that 

maintains the duty cycle weighting of 

the line-haul and switch locomotive 

duty cycles in § 1033.520. You may use 

ramped modal cycle testing for any 

locomotives certified under this part. 

(b) Ramped modal testing requires 

continuous gaseous analyzers and three 

separate PM filters (one for each phase). 

You may collect a single batch sample 

for each test phase, but you must also 

measure gaseous emissions 

continuously to allow calculation of 

notch caps as required under 

§ 1033.101. 

(c) You may operate the engine in any 

way you choose to warm it up. Then 

follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart F for general pre-test 

procedures (including engine and 

sampling system pre-conditioning). 

(d) Begin the test by operating the 

locomotive over the pre-test portion of 

the cycle. 

(e) Start the test according to 40 CFR 

1065.530. 

(1) Each test phase begins when 

operator demand is set to the first 

operator demand setting of each test 

phase of the ramped modal cycle. Each 

test phase ends when the time in mode 

is reached for the last mode in the test 

phase. 

(2) For PM emissions (and other batch 

sampling), the sample period over 

which emissions for the phase are 

averaged generally begins within 10 

seconds after the operator demand is 

changed to start the test phase and ends 

within 5 seconds of the sampling time 

for the test mode is reached. (See Table 

1 of this section.) You may ask to delay 

the start of the sample period to account 

for sample system residence times 

longer than 10 seconds. 

(3) Use good engineering judgment 

when transitioning between phases. 

(i) You should come as close as 

possible to simultaneously: 

(A) Ending batch sampling of the 

previous phase. 

(B) Starting batch sampling of the next 

phase. 

(C) Changing the operator demand to 

the notch setting for the first mode in 

the next phase. 

(ii) Avoid the following: 

(A) Overlapping batch sampling of the 

two phases. 

(B) An unnecessarily long delay 

before starting the next phase. 

(iii) For example, the following 

sequence would generally be 

appropriate: 

(A) End batch sampling for phase 2 

after 240 seconds in notch 7. 

(B) Switch the operator demand to 

notch 8 one second later. 

(C) Begin batch sampling for phase 3 

one second after switching to notch 8. 

(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test 

at the start of the first test phase of the 

applicable ramped modal cycle. 

Continue collecting smoke data until the 

completion of final test phase. Refer to 

§ 1033.101 to determine applicability of 

the smoke standards and § 1033.515 for 

details on how to conduct a smoke test. 

(5) Proceed through each test phase of 

the applicable ramped modal cycle in 

the order specified until the test is 

completed. 

(6) If you must void a test phase you 

may repeat the phase. To do so, begin 

with a warm engine operating at the 

notch setting for the last mode in the 

previous phase. You do not need to 

repeat later phases if they were valid. 

(Note: you must report test results for all 

voided tests and test phases.) 

(7) Following the completion of the 

third test phase of the applicable 

ramped modal cycle, conduct the post 

sampling procedures specified in 40 

CFR 1065.530. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.514.—LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE RAMPED MODAL CYCLE

RMC Test phase Weighting 

factor 

RMC 

mode 

Time in 

mode 

(seconds) 

Notch setting 

Pre-test idle .............................................................. NA NA 600 to 900 Lowest idle setting 

Phase 1 .................................................................... 0.380 A 600 Low Idle 1

(Idle test) .................................................................. .................... B 600 Normal Idle 

Phase Transition 

.................... C 1000 Dynamic Brake 2

.................... 1 520 Notch 1 

.................... 2 520 Notch 2 

Phase 2 .................................................................... 0.458 3 416 Notch 3 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16063 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.514.—LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE RAMPED MODAL CYCLE—Continued 

RMC Test phase Weighting 

factor 

RMC 

mode 

Time in 

mode 

(seconds) 

Notch setting 

.................... 4 352 Notch 4 

.................... 5 304 Notch 5 

.................... 6 312 Notch 6 

.................... 7 240 Notch 7 

Phase Transition 

Phase 3 .................................................................... 0.162 8 600 Notch 8 

1Operate at normal idle for modes A and B if not equipped with multiple idle settings. 

2Operate at normal idle if not equipped with a dynamic brake. 

TABLE 2 OF § 1033.514.—SWITCH LOMOTIVE RAMPED MODAL CYCLE

RMC Test phase Weighting 

factor 

RMC 

mode 

Time in 

mode 

(seconds) 

Notch setting 

Pre-test idle .............................................................. NA NA 600 to 900 Lowest idle setting 

Phase 1 .................................................................... 0.598 A 600 Low Idle 1

(Idle test) .................................................................. .................... B 600 Normal Idle 

Phase Transition 

.................... 1 868 Notch 1 

.................... 2 861 Notch 2 

Phase 2 .................................................................... 0.377 3 406 Notch 3 

.................... 4 252 Notch 4 

.................... 5 252 Notch 5 

Phase Transition 

.................... 6 1080 Notch 6 

Phase 3 .................................................................... 0.025 7 144 Notch 7 

.................... 8 576 Notch 8 

1Operate at normal idle for modes A and B if not equipped with multiple idle settings. 

§ 1033.515 Smoke testing. 

This section describes the equipment 

and procedures for testing for smoke 

emissions when required. 

(a) This section specifies how to 

measure smoke emissions using a fullflow, open path light extinction 

smokemeter. A light extinction meter 

consists of a built-in light beam that 

traverses the exhaust smoke plume that 

issues from the exhaust duct. The light 

beam must be at right angles to the axis 

of the plume. Where the exhaust is not 

circular at its discharge, align the light 

beam to go through the plume along the 

hydraulic diameter, which is defined in 

1065.1001. The light extinction meter 

must meet the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section and the 

following requirements: 

(1) Use an incandescent light source 

with a color temperature range of 2800K 

to 3250K, or a light source with a 

spectral peak between 550 and 570 

nanometers. 

(2) Collimate the light beam to a 

nominal diameter of 3 centimeters and 

an angle of divergence within a 6 degree 

included angle. 

(3) Use a photocell or photodiode 

light detector. If the light source is an 

incandescent lamp, use a detector that 

has a spectral response similar to the 

photopic curve of the human eye (a 

maximum response in the range of 550 

to 570 nanometers, to less than four 

percent of that maximum response 

below 430 nanometers and above 680 

nanometers). 

(4) Attach a collimating tube to the 

detector with apertures equal to the 

beam diameter to restrict the viewing 

angle of the detector to within a 16 

degree included angle. 

(5) Amplify the detector signal 

corresponding to the amount of light. 

(6) You may use an air curtain across 

the light source and detector window 

assemblies to minimize deposition of 

smoke particles on those surfaces, 

provided that it does not measurably 

affect the opacity of the plume. 

(7) Minimize distance from the optical 

centerline to the exhaust outlet; in no 

case may it be more than 3.0 meters. 

The maximum allowable distance of 

unducted space upstream of the optical 

centerline is 0.5 meters. Center the full 

flow of the exhaust stream between the 

source and detector apertures (or 

windows and lenses) and on the axis of 

the light beam. 

(8) You may use light extinction 

meters employing substantially 

identical measurement principles and 

producing substantially equivalent 

results, but which employ other 

electronic and optical techniques. 

(b) All smokemeters must meet the 

following specifications: 

(1) A full-scale deflection response 

time of 0.5 second or less. 

(2) You may attenuate signal 

responses with frequencies higher than 

10 Hz with a separate low-pass 

electronic filter with the following 

performance characteristics: 

(i) Three decibel point: 10 Hz. 

(ii) Insertion loss: 0 ′′0.5 dB. 

(iii) Selectivity: 12 dB down at 40 Hz 

minimum. 

(iv) Attenuation: 27 dB down at 40 Hz 

minimum. 

(c) Perform the smoke test by 

continuously recording smokemeter 

response over the entire locomotive test 

cycle in percent opacity to within one 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16064 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

percent resolution and also 

simultaneously record operator demand 

set point (e.g., notch position). Compare 

the recorded opacities, uncorrected for 

path length, to the smoke standards 

applicable to your locomotive. 

(d) You may use a partial flow 

sampling smokemeter if you correct for 

the path length of your exhaust plume. 

If you use a partial flow sampling meter, 

follow the instrument manufacturer’s 

installation, calibration, operation, and 

maintenance procedures. 

§ 1033.520 Duty cycles and calculations. 

This section describes how to apply 

the duty cycle to measured emission 

rates to calculate cycle-weighted average 

emission rates. 

(a) Standard duty cycles and 

calculations. Tables 1 and 2 of this 

section show the duty cycle to use to 

calculate cycle-weighted average 

emission rates for locomotives equipped 

with two idle settings, eight propulsion 

notches, and at least one dynamic brake 

notch and tested using the Locomotive 

Test Cycle. Use the appropriate 

weighting factors for your locomotive 

application and calculate cycleweighted average emissions as specified 

in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.520.—STANDARD DUTY CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR CALCULATING EMISSION RATES FOR

LOCOMOTIVES WITH MULTIPLE IDLE SETTINGS

Notch setting Test mode 

Line-haul 

weighting 

factors 

Line-haul 

weighting 

factors 

(no dynamic 

brake) 

Switch 

weighting 

factors 

Low Idle ........................................................................................................................... A 0.190 0.190 0.299 

Normal Idle ...................................................................................................................... B 0.190 0.315 0.299 

Dynamic ........................................................................................................................... C 0.125 NA 0.000 

Brake ................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Notch 1 ............................................................................................................................ 1 0.065 0.065 0.124 

Notch 2 ............................................................................................................................ 2 0.065 0.065 0.123 

Notch 3 ............................................................................................................................ 3 0.052 0.052 0.058 

Notch 4 ............................................................................................................................ 4 0.044 0.044 0.036 

Notch 5 ............................................................................................................................ 5 0.038 0.038 0.036 

Notch 6 ............................................................................................................................ 6 0.039 0.039 0.015 

Notch 7 ............................................................................................................................ 7 0.030 0.030 0.002 

Notch 8 ............................................................................................................................ 8 0.162 0.162 0.008 

TABLE 2 OF § 1033.520.—STANDARD DUTY CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR CALCULATING EMISSION RATES FOR

LOCOMOTIVES WITH MULTIPLE IDLE SETTINGS

Notch setting Test mode 

Line-haul 

weighting 

factors 

Line-haul 

weighting 

factors 

(no dynamic 

brake) 

Switch 

weighting 

factors 

Normal Idle ...................................................................................................................... A 0.380 0.505 0.598 

Dynamic ........................................................................................................................... C 0.125 NA 0.000 

Brake ................................................................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Notch 1 ............................................................................................................................ 1 0.065 0.065 0.124 

Notch 2 ............................................................................................................................ 2 0.065 0.065 0.123 

Notch 3 ............................................................................................................................ 3 0.052 0.052 0.058 

Notch 4 ............................................................................................................................ 4 0.044 0.044 0.036 

Notch 5 ............................................................................................................................ 5 0.038 0.038 0.036 

Notch 6 ............................................................................................................................ 6 0.039 0.039 0.015 

Notch 7 ............................................................................................................................ 7 0.030 0.030 0.002 

Notch 8 ............................................................................................................................ 8 0.162 0.162 0.008 

(b) Idle and dynamic brake notches. If 

your locomotive is equipped with two 

idle settings and is not equipped with 

dynamic brake, use a normal idle 

weighting factor of 0.315 for the linehaul cycle. If your locomotive is 

equipped with only one idle setting and 

no dynamic brake, use an idle weighting 

factor of 0.505 for the line-haul cycle. 

(c) Nonstandard notches or no 

notches. If your locomotive is equipped 

with more or less than 8 propulsion 

notches, recommend an alternate test 

cycle based on the in-use locomotive 

configuration. Unless you have data 

demonstrating that your locomotive will 

be operated differently from 

conventional locomotives, recommend 

weighting factors that are consistent 

with the power weightings of the 

specified duty cycle. For example, the 

average load factor for your 

recommended cycle (cycle-weighted 

power divided by rated power) should 

be equivalent to those of conventional 

locomotives. We may also allow the use 

of the standard power levels shown in 

Table 3 of this section for nonstandard 

locomotive testing subject to our prior 

approval. 

TABLE 3 OF § 1033.520.—STANDARD

NOTCH POWER LEVELS EXPRESSED

AS A PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM

TEST POWER

Normal Idle .............................. 0.00% 

Dynamic Brake ........................ 0.00% 

Notch 1 .................................... 4.50% 

Notch 2 .................................... 11.50% 

Notch 3 .................................... 23.50% 

Notch 4 .................................... 35.00% 

Notch 5 .................................... 48.50% 

Notch 6 .................................... 64.00% 

Notch 7 .................................... 85.00% 

Notch 8 .................................... 100.00% 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16065 

(d) Optional Ramped Modal Cycle 

Testing. Tables 1 and 2 of § 1033.514 

show the weighting factors to use to 

calculate cycle-weighted average 

emission rates for the applicable 

locomotive ramped modal cycle. Use 

the weighting factors for the ramped 

modal cycle for your locomotive 

application and calculate cycleweighted average emissions as specified 

in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G. 

(e) Automated Start-Stop. For 

locomotive equipped with features that 

shut the engine off after prolonged 

periods of idle, multiply the measured 

idle mass emission rate over the idle 

portion of the applicable test cycles by 

a factor equal to one minus the 

estimated fraction reduction in idling 

time that will result in use from the 

shutdown feature. Do not apply this 

factor to the weighted idle power. 

Application of this adjustment is subject 

to our approval. 

(f) Multi-engine locomotives. This 

paragraph (f) applies for locomotives 

using multiple engines where all 

engines are identical in all material 

respects. In cases where we allow 

engine dynamometer testing, you may 

test a single engine consistent with good 

engineering judgment, as long as you 

test it all operating points at which any 

of the engines will operate when 

installed in the locomotive. Weight the 

results to reflect the power demand/ 

power-sharing of the in-use 

configuration for each notch setting. 

§ 1033.525 Adjusting emission levels to 

account for infrequently regenerating 

aftertreatment devices. 

This section describes how to adjust 

emission results from locomotives using 

aftertreatment technology with 

infrequent regeneration events that 

occur during testing. See paragraph (e) 

of this section for how to adjust ramped 

modal testing. See paragraph (f) of this 

section for how to adjust discrete-mode 

testing. For this section, ‘‘regeneration’’

means an intended event during which 

emission levels change while the system 

restores aftertreatment performance. For 

example, hydrocarbon emissions may 

increase temporarily while oxidizing 

accumulated particulate matter in a 

trap. Also for this section, ‘‘infrequent’’

refers to regeneration events that are 

expected to occur on average less than 

once per sample period. 

(a) Developing adjustment factors. 

Develop an upward adjustment factor 

and a downward adjustment factor for 

each pollutant based on measured 

emission data and observed 

regeneration frequency. Adjustment 

factors should generally apply to an 

entire engine family, but you may 

develop separate adjustment factors for 

different configurations within an 

engine family. If you use adjustment 

factors for certification, you must 

identify the frequency factor, F, from 

paragraph (b) of this section in your 

application for certification and use the 

adjustment factors in all testing for that 

engine family. You may use carryover or 

carry-across data to establish adjustment 

factors for an engine family, as 

described in § 1033.235, consistent with 

good engineering judgment. All 

adjustment factors for regeneration are 

additive. Determine adjustment factors 

separately for different test segments as 

described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of 

this section. You may use either of the 

following different approaches for 

locomotives that use aftertreatment with 

infrequent regeneration events: 

(1) You may disregard this section if 

you determine that regeneration does 

not significantly affect emission levels 

for an engine family (or configuration) 

or if it is not practical to identify when 

regeneration occurs. If you do not use 

adjustment factors under this section, 

your locomotives must meet emission 

standards for all testing, without regard 

to regeneration. 

(2) You may ask us to approve an 

alternate methodology to account for 

regeneration events. We will generally 

limit approval to cases in which your 

locomotives use aftertreatment 

technology with extremely infrequent 

regeneration and you are unable to 

apply the provisions of this section. 

(b) Calculating average emission 

factors. Calculate the average emission 

factor (EFA) based on the following 

equation: 

EFA = (F)(EFH) + (1¥F)(EFL) 

Where: 

F = The frequency of the regeneration event 

in terms of the fraction of tests during 

which the regeneration occurs. You may 

determine F from in-use operating data 

or running replicate tests. 

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. 

(c) Applying adjustment factors. 

Apply adjustment factors based on 

whether regeneration occurs during the 

test run. You must be able to identify 

regeneration in a way that is readily 

apparent during all testing. 

(1) If regeneration does not occur 

during a test segment, add an upward 

adjustment factor to the measured 

emission rate. Determine the upward 

adjustment factor (UAF) using the 

following equation: 

UAF = EFA¥EFL

(2) If regeneration occurs or starts to 

occur during a test segment, subtract a 

downward adjustment factor from the 

measured emission rate. Determine the 

downward adjustment factor (DAF) 

using the following equation: 

DAF = EFH¥EFA

(d) Sample calculation. If EFL is 0.10 

g/bhp-hr, EFH is 0.50 g/bhp-hr, and F is 

0.1 (the regeneration occurs once for 

each ten tests), then: 

EFA = (0.1)(0.5 g/bhp-hr) + (1.0¥0.1)(0.1 g/ 

bhp-hr) = 0.14 g/bhp-hr. 

UAF = 0.14 g/bhp-hr¥0.10 g/bhp-hr = 0.04 

g/bhp-hr. 

DAF = 0.50 g/bhp-hr¥0.14 g/bhp-hr = 0.36 

g/bhp-hr. 

(e) Ramped modal testing. Develop 

separate adjustment factors for each test 

phase. If a regeneration has started but 

has not been completed when you reach 

the end of a test phase, use good 

engineering judgment to reduce your 

downward adjustments to be 

proportional to the emission impact that 

occurred in the test phases. 

(f) Discrete-mode testing. Develop 

separate adjustment factors for each test 

mode. If a regeneration has started but 

has not been completed when you reach 

the end of the sampling time for a test 

mode extend the sampling period for 

that mode until the regeneration is 

completed. 

Subpart G—Special Compliance 

Provisions 

§ 1033.601 General compliance provisions. 

Locomotive manufacturer/ 

remanufacturers, as well as owners and 

operators of locomotives subject to the 

requirements of this part, and all other 

persons, must observe the provisions of 

this part, the requirements and 

prohibitions in 40 CFR part 1068, and 

the provisions of the Clean Air Act. The 

provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 apply for 

locomotives as specified in that part, 

except as otherwise specified in this 

section. 

(a) Meaning of manufacturer. When 

used in 40 CFR part 1068, the term 

‘‘manufacturer’’ means manufacturer 

and/or remanufacturer. 

(b) Engine rebuilding. The provisions 

of 40 CFR 1068.120 do not apply when 

remanufacturing locomotives. 

(c) Exemptions. (1) The exemption 

provisions of 40 CFR 1068.240, 

1068.250, 1068.255, and 1068.260 do 

not apply for domestic or imported 

locomotives. 

(2) The provisions for importing 

engines and equipment under the 

identical configuration exemption of 40 

CFR 1068.315(i) do not apply for 

locomotives. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(3) The provisions for importing 

engines and equipment under the 

ancient engine exemption of 40 CFR 

1068.315(j) do not apply for 

locomotives. 

(d) SEAs, defect reporting, and recall. 

The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, 

subparts E and F, apply to certificate 

holders for locomotives as specified in 

that part. When there are multiple 

persons meeting the definition of 

manufacturer or remanufacturer, each 

person meeting the definition of 

manufacturer or remanufacturer must 

comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 1068, subparts E and F, as needed 

so that the certificate holder can fulfill 

its obligations under those subparts. 

(e) Introduction into commerce. The 

placement of a new locomotive or new 

locomotive engine back into service 

following remanufacturing is a violation 

of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1), unless it has 

a valid certificate of conformity for its 

model year and the required label. 

§ 1033.610 Small railroad provisions. 

In general, the provisions of this part 

apply for all locomotives, including 

those owned by Class II and Class III 

railroads. This section describes how 

these provisions apply for railroads 

meeting the definition of ‘‘small 

railroad’’ in § 1033.901. (Note: The term 

‘‘small railroad’’ excludes some Class II 

and Class III railroads, such as those 

owned by large parent companies.) 

(a) Locomotives become subject to the 

provisions of this part when they 

become ‘‘new’’ as defined in § 1033.901. 

Under that definition, a locomotive is 

‘‘new’’ when first assembled, and 

generally becomes ‘‘new’’ again when 

remanufactured. As an exception to this 

general concept, locomotives that are 

owned and operated by railroads 

meeting the definition of ‘‘small 

railroad’’ in § 1033.901 do not become 

‘‘new’’ when remanufactured, unless 

they were previously certified to EPA 

emission standards. 

(b) The provisions of subpart I of this 

part apply to all owners and operators 

of locomotives subject to this part 1033. 

However, the regulations of that subpart 

specify some provisions that apply only 

for Class I freight railroads, and others 

that apply differently to Class I freight 

railroads and other railroads. 

(c) We may exempt new locomotives 

that are owned and operated by small 

railroads from the prohibition against 

remanufacturing a locomotive without a 

certificate of conformity as specified in 

this paragraph (c). This exemption is 

only available in cases where no 

certified remanufacturing system is 

available for the locomotive. For 

example, it is possible that no 

remanufacturer will certify a system for 

very old locomotive models that 

comprise a tiny fraction of the fleet and 

that are remanufactured infrequently. 

Send your request for such exemptions 

to the Designated Compliance Officer. 

We may consider the issue of excessive 

costs in determining the availability of 

certified systems. If we grant this 

exemption, you are required to return 

the locomotive to its previously certified 

configuration. 

§ 1033.615 Voluntarily subjecting 

locomotives to the standards of this part. 

The provisions of this section specify 

the cases in which an owner or 

manufacturer of a locomotive or similar 

piece of equipment can subject it to the 

standards and requirements of this part. 

Once the locomotive or equipment 

becomes subject to the locomotive 

standards and requirements of this part, 

it remains subject to the standards and 

requirements of this part for the 

remainder of its service life. 

(a) Equipment excluded from the 

definition of ‘‘locomotive’’. (1) 

Manufacturers/remanufacturers of 

equipment that is excluded from the 

definition of ‘‘locomotive’’ because of its 

total power, but would otherwise meet 

the definition of locomotive may ask to 

have it considered to be a locomotive. 

To do this, submit an application for 

certification as specified in subpart C of 

this part, explaining why it should be 

considered to be a locomotive. If we 

approve your request, it will be deemed 

to be a locomotive for the remainder of 

its service life. 

(2) In unusual circumstances, we may 

deem other equipment to be 

locomotives (at the request of the owner 

or manufacturer/remanufacturer) where 

such equipment does not conform 

completely to the definition of 

locomotive, but is functionally 

equivalent to a locomotive. 

(b) Locomotives excluded from the 

definition of ‘‘new’’. Owners of 

remanufactured locomotives excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘new’’ in 

§ 1033.901 under paragraph (2) of that 

definition may choose to upgrade their 

locomotives to subject their locomotives 

to the standards and requirements of 

this part by complying with the 

specifications of a certified 

remanufacturing system, including the 

labeling specifications of § 1033.135. 

§ 1033.620 Hardship provisions for 

manufacturers and remanufacturers. 

(a) If you qualify for the economic 

hardship provisions specified in 40 CFR 

1068.245, we may approve a period of 

delayed compliance for up to one model 

year total. 

(b) The provisions of this paragraph 

(b) are intended to address problems 

that could occur near the date on which 

more stringent emission standards 

become effective, such as the transition 

from the Tier 2 standards to the Tier 3 

standards for line-haul locomotives on 

January 1, 2012. 

(1) In appropriate extreme and 

unusual circumstances that are clearly 

outside the control of the manufacturer 

and could not have been avoided by the 

exercise of prudence, diligence, and due 

care, we may permit you, for a brief 

period, to introduce into commerce 

locomotives which do not comply with 

the applicable emission standards if all 

of the following conditions apply: 

(i) You cannot reasonably 

manufacture the locomotives in such a 

manner that they would be able to 

comply with the applicable standards. 

(ii) The manufacture of the 

locomotives was substantially 

completed prior to the applicability date 

of the standards from which you seek 

relief. 

(iii) Manufacture of the locomotives 

was previously scheduled to be 

completed at such a point in time that 

locomotives would have been included 

in the previous model year, such that 

they would have been subject to less 

stringent standards, and that such 

schedule was feasible under normal 

conditions. 

(iv) You demonstrate that the 

locomotives comply with the less 

stringent standards that applied to the 

previous model year’s production 

described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this 

section, as prescribed by subpart C of 

this part (i.e., that the locomotives are 

identical to locomotives certified in the 

previous model year). 

(v) You exercised prudent planning, 

were not able to avoid the violation, and 

have taken all reasonable steps to 

minimize the extent of the 

nonconformity. 

(vi) We approve your request before 

you introduce the locomotives into 

commerce. 

(2) You must notify us as soon as you 

become aware of the extreme or unusual 

circumstances. 

(3)(i) Include locomotives for which 

we grant relief under this section in the 

engine family for which they were 

originally intended to be included. 

(ii) Where the locomotives are to be 

included in an engine family that was 

certified to an FEL above the applicable 

standard, you must reserve credits to 

cover the locomotives covered by this 

allowance and include the required 

information for these locomotives in the 

end-of-year report required by subpart H 

of this part. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16067 

(c) In granting relief under this 

section, we may also set other 

conditions as appropriate, such as 

requiring payment of fees to negate an 

economic gain that such relief would 

otherwise provide. 

§ 1033.625 Special certification provisions 

for non-locomotive-specific engines. 

You may certify freshly manufactured 

or remanufactured locomotives using 

non-locomotive-specific engines (as 

defined in § 1033.901) using the normal 

certification procedures of this part. 

Locomotives certified in that way are 

generally treated the same as other 

locomotives, except where specified 

otherwise. The provisions of this section 

provide for design certification to the 

locomotive standards in this part for 

locomotives using engines included in 

engine families certified under 40 CFR 

part 1039 (or part 89) in limited 

circumstances. 

(a) Remanufactured or freshly 

manufactured switch locomotives 

powered by non-locomotive-specific 

engines may be certified by design 

without the test data required by 

§ 1033.235 if all of the following are 

true: 

(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 year if it is subject 

to the same standards. You may not 

make any modifications to the engines 

unless we approve them. 

(2) The engines were certified to 

standards that are numerically lower 

then the applicable locomotive 

standards of this part. 

(3) More engines are reasonably 

projected to be sold and used under the 

certificate for non-locomotive use than 

for use in locomotives. 

(4) The number of such locomotives 

certified under this section does not 

exceed 15 in any three-year period. We 

may waive this sales limit for 

locomotive models that have previously 

demonstrated compliance with the 

locomotive standards of § 1033.101 inuse. 

(5) We approved the application as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(b) To certify your locomotives by 

design under this section, submit your 

application as specified in § 1033.205, 

except include the following instead of 

the locomotive test data otherwise 

required: 

(1) A description of the engines to be 

used, including the name of the engine 

manufacturer and engine family 

identifier for the engines. 

(2) A brief engineering analysis 

describing how the engine’s emission 

controls will function when installed in 

the locomotive throughout the 

locomotive’s useful life. 

(3) The emission data submitted 

under 40 CFR part 1039 (or part 89). 

(c) Locomotives certified under this 

section are subject to all of the same 

requirements of this part unless 

specified otherwise in 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). 

(d) We will approve or deny the 

application as specified in subpart C of 

this part. For example, we will deny 

your application for certification by 

design under this section in any case 

where we have evidence that your 

locomotives will not conform to the 

requirements of this part throughout 

their useful lives. 

§ 1033.630 Staged-assembly exemption. 

You may ask us to provide a 

temporary exemption to allow you to 

complete production of your engines 

and locomotives at different facilities, as 

long as you maintain control of the 

engines until they are in their certified 

configuration. We may require you to 

take specific steps to ensure that such 

locomotives are in their certified 

configuration before reaching the 

ultimate purchaser. You may request an 

exemption under this section in your 

application for certification, or in a 

separate submission. 

§ 1033.640 Provisions for repowered and 

refurbished locomotives. 

The provisions of this section apply 

for locomotives that are produced from 

an existing locomotive so that the new 

locomotive contains both previously 

used parts and parts that have never 

been used before. A single existing 

locomotive cannot be divided into parts 

and combined with new parts to create 

more than one remanufactured 

locomotive. 

(a) Repowered locomotives are used 

locomotives in which a freshly 

manufactured propulsion engine is 

installed. Refurbished locomotives are 

new locomotives that are produced 

using more unused parts than 

previously used parts, as described in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) The relative amount of previously 

used parts is determined as follows: 

(1) Identify the parts in the fully 

assembled locomotive that have been 

previously used and those that have 

never been used before. 

(2) Weight the unused parts and 

previously used parts by the dollar 

value of the parts. For example, a single 

part valued at $1200 would count the 

same as six parts valued at $200 each. 

Group parts by system where possible 

(such as counting the engine as one 

part) if either all the parts in that system 

are used or all the parts in that system 

are unused. 

(3) Sum the values of the unused 

parts. Also sum the values of the 

previously used parts. The relative 

fraction of used parts is the total value 

of previously used parts divided by the 

combined value of the unused parts and 

previously used parts. 

(c) If the weighted fraction of the 

locomotive that is comprised of 

previously used parts is less than 50 

percent, then the locomotive is 

considered to be a refurbished 

locomotive. 

(d) If the weighted fraction of the 

locomotive that is comprised of 

previously used parts is less than 25 

percent, then the locomotive is 

considered to be a freshly manufactured 

locomotive and the date of original 

manufacture is the most recent date on 

which the locomotive was assembled 

using less than 25 percent previously 

used parts. (Note: If the weighted 

fraction of the locomotive that is 

comprised of previously used parts is 

greater than or equal to 25 percent, then 

the date of original manufacture is 

unchanged.) For example: 

(1) If you produce a new locomotive 

that includes a used frame, but all other 

parts are unused, then the locomotive is 

considered to be a freshly manufactured 

locomotive because the value of the 

frame would be less than 25 percent of 

the total value of the locomotive. Its 

date of original manufacture is the date 

on which you complete its assembly. 

(2) If you produce a new locomotive 

by replacing the engine in a 1990 

locomotive with a freshly manufactured 

engine, but all other parts are used, then 

the locomotive is considered to be a 

remanufactured locomotive and its date 

of original manufacture is the date on 

which assembly was completed in 1990. 

(Note: Such a locomotive would also be 

considered to be a repowered locomotive.) 

§ 1033.650 Incidental use exemption for 

Canadian and Mexican locomotives. 

You may ask us to exempt from the 

requirements and prohibitions of this 

part locomotives that are operated 

primarily outside of the United States 

and that enter the United States 

temporarily from Canada or Mexico. We 

will approve this exemption only where 

we determine that the locomotive’s 

operation within the United States will 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

not be extensive and will be incidental 

to its primary operation. For example, 

we would generally exempt locomotives 

that will not operate more than 25 miles 

from the border and will operate in the 

United States less than 5 percent of their 

operating time. For existing operations, 

you must request this exemption before 

January 1, 2011. In your request, 

identify the locomotives for which you 

are requesting an exemption, and 

describe their projected use in the 

United States. We may grant the 

exemption broadly or limit the 

exemption to specific locomotives and/ 

or specific geographic areas. However, 

we will typically approve exemptions 

for specific rail facilities rather than 

specific locomotives. In unusual 

circumstances, such as cases in which 

new rail facilities are created, we may 

approve requests submitted after 

January 1, 2011. 

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and 

Trading for Certification 

§ 1033.701 General provisions. 

(a) You may average, bank, and trade 

(ABT) emission credits for purposes of 

certification as described in this subpart 

to show compliance with the standards 

of this part. Participation in this 

program is voluntary. 

(b) Section 1033.740 restricts the use 

of emission credits to certain averaging 

sets. 

(c) The definitions of Subpart J of this 

part apply to this subpart. The following 

definitions also apply: 

(1) Actual emission credits means 

emission credits you have generated 

that we have verified by reviewing your 

final report. 

(2) Averaging set means a set of 

locomotives in which emission credits 

may be exchanged only with other 

locomotives in the same averaging set. 

(3) Broker means any entity that 

facilitates a trade of emission credits 

between a buyer and seller. 

(4) Buyer means the entity that 

receives emission credits as a result of 

a trade. 

(5) Reserved emission credits means 

emission credits you have generated 

that we have not yet verified by 

reviewing your final report. 

(6) Seller means the entity that 

provides emission credits during a 

trade. 

(7) Standard means the emission 

standard that applies under subpart B of 

this part for locomotives not 

participating in the ABT program of this 

subpart. 

(8) Trade means to exchange emission 

credits, either as a buyer or seller. 

(9) Transfer means to convey control 

of credits generated for an individual 

locomotive to the purchaser, owner or 

operator of the locomotive at the time of 

manufacture or remanufacture; or to 

convey control of previously generated 

credits from the purchaser, owner or 

operator of an individual locomotive to 

the manufacturer/remanufacturer at the 

time of manufacture/remanufacture. 

(d) You may not use emission credits 

generated under this subpart to offset 

any emissions that exceed an FEL or 

standard. This applies for all testing, 

including certification testing, in-use 

testing, selective enforcement audits, 

and other production-line testing. 

However, if emissions from a 

locomotive exceed an FEL or standard 

(for example, during a selective 

enforcement audit), you may use 

emission credits to recertify the engine 

family with a higher FEL that applies 

only to future production. 

(e) Engine families that use emission 

credits for one or more pollutants may 

not generate positive emission credits 

for another pollutant. 

(f) Emission credits may be used in 

the model year they are generated or in 

future model years. Emission credits 

may not be used for past model years. 

(g) You may increase or decrease an 

FEL during the model year by amending 

your application for certification under 

§ 1033.225. The new FEL may apply 

only to locomotives you have not 

already introduced into commerce. Each 

locomotive’s emission control 

information label must include the 

applicable FELs. You must conduct 

production line testing to verify that the 

emission levels are achieved. 

(h) Credits may be generated by any 

certifying manufacturer/remanufacturer 

and may be held by any of the following 

entities: 

(1) Locomotive or engine 

manufacturers. 

(2) Locomotive or engine 

remanufacturers. 

(3) Locomotive owners. 

(4) Locomotive operators. 

(5) Other entities after notification to 

EPA. 

(i) All locomotives that are certified to 

an FEL that is different from the 

emission standard that would otherwise 

apply to the locomotives are required to 

comply with that FEL for the remainder 

of their service lives, except as allowed 

by § 1033.750. 

(1) Manufacturers must notify the 

purchaser of any locomotive that is 

certified to an FEL that is different from 

the emission standard that would 

otherwise apply that the locomotive is 

required to comply with that FEL for the 

remainder of its service life. 

(2) Remanufacturers must notify the 

owner of any locomotive or locomotive 

engine that is certified to an FEL that is 

different from the emission standard 

that would otherwise apply that the 

locomotive (or the locomotive in which 

the engine is used) is required to 

comply with that FEL for the remainder 

of its service life. 

(j) The FEL to which the locomotive 

is certified must be included on the 

locomotive label required in § 1033.135. 

This label must include the notification 

specified in paragraph (i) of this section. 

§ 1033.705 Calculate emission credits. 

The provisions of this section apply 

separately for calculating emission 

credits for NOX or PM. 

(a) Calculate positive emission credits 

for an engine family that has an FEL 

below the otherwise applicable 

standard. Calculate negative emission 

credits for an engine family that has an 

FEL above the otherwise applicable 

standard. 

(b) For each participating engine 

family, calculate positive or negative 

emission credits relative to the 

otherwise applicable emission standard. 

Prior to the end of year report, round 

calculated 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 megawatthrs, calculate credits for each engine 

family from the following equation: 

Emission credits = (Std—FEL) × (1.341) 

× (UL) × (Production) × (Fp) × (10¥3

kW-Mg/MW-g). 

Where: 

Std = The applicable locomotive and 

locomotive engine NOX or PM emission 

standard in g/bhp-hr (except that Std = 

previous FEL in g/bhp-hr for locomotives 

that were certified under this part to an 

FEL other than the standard during the 

previous useful life). 

FEL = The family emission limit for the 

engine family in g/bhp-hr. 

UL = The sales-weighted average useful life 

in megawatt-hours (or the subset of the 

engine family for which credits are being 

calculated), as specified in the 

application for certification. 

Production = The number of locomotives 

participating in the averaging, banking, 

and trading program within the given 

engine family during the calendar year 

(or the number of locomotives in the 

subset of the engine family for which 

credits are being calculated). Quarterly 

production projections are used for 

initial certification. Actual applicable 

production/sales volumes are used for 

end-of-year compliance determination. 

Fp = The proration factor as determined in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(c) When useful life is expressed in 

terms of miles, calculate the useful life 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16069 

in terms of megawatt-hours (UL) by 

dividing the useful life in miles by 

100,000, and multiplying by the salesweighted average rated power of the 

engine family. For example, if your 

useful life is 800,000 miles for a family 

with an average rated power of 3500 hp, 

then your equivalent MW-hr useful life 

would be 28,000 MW-hrs. Credits are 

calculated using this UL value in the 

equations of paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(d) The proration factor is an estimate 

of the fraction of a locomotive’s service 

life that remains as a function of age. 

The proration factor is 1.00 for freshly 

manufactured locomotives. 

(1) The locomotive’s age is the length 

of time in years from the date of original 

manufacture to the date at which the 

remanufacture (for which credits are 

being calculated) is completed, rounded 

to the next higher year. 

(2) The proration factors for line-haul 

locomotives ages 1 through 20 are 

specified in Table 1 of this section. For 

line-haul locomotives more than 20 

years old, use the proration factor for 20 

year old locomotives. The proration 

factors for switch locomotives ages 1 

through 40 are specified in Table 2 of 

this section. For switch locomotives 

more than 40 years old, use the 

proration factor for 40 year old 

locomotives. 

(3) For replacement or repower 

engines, the proration factor is based on 

the age of the locomotive chassis, not 

the age of the engine, except for 

remanufactured switch locomotives that 

qualify as refurbished. Use a proration 

factor of 0.60 for remanufactured switch 

locomotives meting the definition of 

refurbished. (Note: The proration factor 

is 1.00 for all refurbished locomotives 

that also meet the definition of freshly 

manufactured.) 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.705.—PRORATION

FACTORS FOR LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVES

Locomotive age 

(years) 

Proration 

factor 

(Fp) 

1 ................................................ 0.96 

2 ................................................ 0.92 

3 ................................................ 0.88 

4 ................................................ 0.84 

5 ................................................ 0.81 

6 ................................................ 0.77 

7 ................................................ 0.73 

8 ................................................ 0.69 

9 ................................................ 0.65 

10 .............................................. 0.61 

11 .............................................. 0.57 

12 .............................................. 0.54 

13 .............................................. 0.50 

14 .............................................. 0.47 

15 .............................................. 0.43 

TABLE 1 OF § 1033.705.—PRORATION

FACTORS FOR LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVES—Continued 

Locomotive age 

(years) 

Proration 

factor 

(Fp) 

16 .............................................. 0.40 

17 .............................................. 0.36 

18 .............................................. 0.33 

19 .............................................. 0.30 

20 .............................................. 0.27 

TABLE 2 OF § 1033.705.—PRORATION

FACTORS FOR SWITCH LOCOMOTIVES

Locomotive age 

(years) 

Proration 

factor 

1 ................................................ 0.98 

2 ................................................ 0.96 

3 ................................................ 0.94 

4 ................................................ 0.92 

5 ................................................ 0.9 

6 ................................................ 0.88 

7 ................................................ 0.86 

8 ................................................ 0.84 

9 ................................................ 0.82 

10 .............................................. 0.8 

11 .............................................. 0.78 

12 .............................................. 0.76 

13 .............................................. 0.74 

14 .............................................. 0.72 

15 .............................................. 0.7 

16 .............................................. 0.68 

17 .............................................. 0.66 

18 .............................................. 0.64 

19 .............................................. 0.62 

20 .............................................. 0.6 

21 .............................................. 0.58 

22 .............................................. 0.56 

23 .............................................. 0.54 

24 .............................................. 0.52 

25 .............................................. 0.5 

26 .............................................. 0.48 

27 .............................................. 0.46 

28 .............................................. 0.44 

29 .............................................. 0.42 

30 .............................................. 0.4 

31 .............................................. 0.38 

32 .............................................. 0.36 

33 .............................................. 0.34 

34 .............................................. 0.32 

35 .............................................. 0.3 

36 .............................................. 0.28 

37 .............................................. 0.26 

38 .............................................. 0.24 

39 .............................................. 0.22 

40 .............................................. 0.2 

(e) In your application for 

certification, base your showing of 

compliance on projected production 

volumes for locomotives that will be 

placed into service in the United States. 

As described in § 1033.730, compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart is 

determined at the end of the model year 

based on actual production volumes for 

locomotives that will be placed into 

service in the United States. Do not 

include any of the following 

locomotives to calculate emission 

credits: 

(1) Locomotives exempted under 

subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR 

part 1068. 

(2) Exported locomotives. You may 

ask to include locomotives sold to 

Mexican or Canadian railroads if they 

will likely operate within the United 

States and you include all such 

locomotives (both credit using and 

credit generating locomotives). 

(3) Locomotives not subject to the 

requirements of this part, such as those 

excluded under § 1033.5. 

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) Any other locomotives, where we 

indicate elsewhere in this part 1033 that 

they are not to be included in the 

calculations of this subpart. 

§ 1033.710 Averaging emission credits. 

(a) Averaging is the exchange of 

emission credits among your engine 

families. You may average emission 

credits only as allowed by § 1033.740. 

(b) You may certify one or more 

engine families to an FEL above the 

applicable standard, subject to the FEL 

caps and other provisions in subpart B 

of this part, if you show in your 

application for certification that your 

projected balance of all emission-credit 

transactions in that model year is greater 

than or equal to zero. 

(c) If you certify an engine family to 

an FEL that exceeds the otherwise 

applicable standard, you must obtain 

enough emission credits to offset the 

engine family’s deficit by the due date 

for the final report required in 

§ 1033.730. The emission credits used to 

address the deficit may come from your 

other engine families that generate 

emission credits in the same model 

year, from emission credits you have 

banked, or from emission credits you 

obtain through trading or by transfer. 

§ 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 averaging, 

trading, or transferring in future model 

years. You may use banked emission 

credits only as allowed by § 1033.740. 

(b) In your application for 

certification, designate any emission 

credits you intend to bank. These 

emission credits will be considered 

reserved credits. During the model year 

and before the due date for the final 

report, you may redesignate these 

emission credits for averaging or 

trading. 

(c) You may use banked emission 

credits from the previous model year for 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

averaging, trading, or transferring before 

we verify them, but we may revoke 

these emission credits if we are unable 

to verify them after reviewing your 

reports or auditing your records. 

(d) Reserved credits become actual 

emission credits only when we verify 

them after reviewing your final report. 

§ 1033.720 Trading emission credits. 

(a) Trading is the exchange of 

emission credits between certificate 

holders. You may use traded emission 

credits for averaging, banking, or further 

trading transactions. Traded emission 

credits may be used only as allowed by 

§ 1033.740. 

(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. 

(c) If a negative emission credit 

balance results from a transaction, both 

the buyer and seller are liable, except in 

cases we deem to involve fraud. See 

§ 1033.255(e) for cases involving fraud. 

We may void the certificates of all 

engine families participating in a trade 

that results in a manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer having a negative 

balance of emission credits. See 

§ 1033.745. 

§ 1033.722 Transferring emission credits. 

(a) Credit transfer is the conveying of 

control over credits, either: 

(1) From a certifying manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer to an owner/operator. 

(2) From an owner/operator to a 

certifying manufacturer/remanufacturer. 

(b) Transferred credits can be: 

(1) Used by a certifying manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer in averaging. 

(2) Transferred again within the 

model year. 

(3) Reserved for later banking. 

Transferred credits may not be traded 

unless they have been previously 

banked. 

(c) Owners/operators participating in 

credit transfers must submit the reports 

specified in § 1033.730. 

§ 1033.725 Requirements for your 

application for certification. 

(a) You must declare in your 

application for certification your intent 

to use the provisions of this subpart for 

each engine family that will be certified 

using the ABT program. You must also 

declare the FELs you select for the 

engine family for each pollutant for 

which you are using the ABT program. 

Your FELs must comply with the 

specifications of subpart B of this part, 

including the FEL caps. FELs must be 

expressed to the same number of 

decimal places as the applicable 

standards. 

(b) Include the following in your 

application for certification: 

(1) A statement that, to the best of 

your belief, you will not have a negative 

balance of emission credits for any 

averaging set when all emission credits 

are calculated at the end of the year. 

(2) Detailed calculations of projected 

emission credits (positive or negative) 

based on projected production volumes. 

If your engine family will generate 

positive emission credits, state 

specifically where the emission credits 

will be applied (for example, to which 

engine family they will be applied in 

averaging, whether they will be traded, 

or whether they will be reserved for 

banking). If you have projected negative 

emission credits for an engine family, 

state the source of positive emission 

credits to offset the negative emission 

credits. Describe whether the emission 

credits are actual or reserved and 

whether they will come from averaging, 

banking, trading, transferring or a 

combination of these. Identify from 

which of your engine families or from 

which manufacturer/remanufacturer the 

emission credits will come. 

§ 1033.730 ABT reports. 

(a) If any of your engine families are 

certified using the ABT provisions of 

this subpart, you must send an end-ofyear report within 90 days after the end 

of the model year and a final report 

within 270 days after the end of the 

model year. We may waive the 

requirement to send the end-of-year 

report, as long as you send the final 

report on time. 

(b) Your end-of-year and final reports 

must include the following information 

for each engine family participating in 

the ABT program: 

(1) Engine family designation. 

(2) The emission standards that would 

otherwise apply to the engine family. 

(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you 

changed an FEL during the model year, 

identify each FEL you used and 

calculate the positive or negative 

emission credits under each FEL. Also, 

describe how the applicable FEL can be 

identified for each locomotive you 

produced. For example, you might keep 

a list of locomotive identification 

numbers that correspond with certain 

FEL values. 

(4) The projected and actual 

production volumes for the model year 

that will be placed into service in the 

United States as described in 

§ 1033.705. If you changed an FEL 

during the model year, identify the 

actual production volume associated 

with each FEL. 

(5) Rated power for each locomotive 

configuration, and the sales-weighted 

average locomotive power for the engine 

family. 

(6) Useful life. 

(7) Calculated positive or negative 

emission credits for the whole engine 

family. Identify any emission credits 

that you traded or transferred, as 

described in paragraph (d)(1) or (e) of 

this section. 

(c) Your end-of-year and final reports 

must include the following additional 

information: 

(1) Show that your net balance of 

emission credits from all your engine 

families in each averaging set in the 

applicable model year is not negative. 

(2) State whether you will reserve any 

emission credits for banking. 

(3) State that the report’s contents are 

accurate. 

(d) If you trade emission credits, you 

must send us a report within 90 days 

after the transaction, as follows: 

(1) As the seller, you must include the 

following information in your report: 

(i) The corporate names of the buyer 

and any brokers. 

(ii) A copy of any contracts related to 

the trade. 

(iii) The engine families that 

generated emission credits for the trade, 

including the number of emission 

credits from each family. 

(2) As the buyer, you must include the 

following information in your report: 

(i) The corporate names of the seller 

and any brokers. 

(ii) A copy of any contracts related to 

the trade. 

(iii) How you intend to use the 

emission credits, including the number 

of emission credits you intend to apply 

to each engine family (if known). 

(e) If you transfer emission credits, 

you must send us a report within 90 

days after the first transfer to an owner/ 

operator, as follows: 

(1) Include the following information: 

(i) The corporate names of the owner/ 

operator receiving the credits. 

(ii) A copy of any contracts related to 

the trade. 

(iii) The serial numbers and engine 

families for the locomotive that 

generated the transferred emission 

credits and the number of emission 

credits from each family. 

(2) The requirements of this paragraph 

(e) apply separately for each owner/ 

operator. 

(3) We may require you to submit 

additional 90-day reports under this 

paragraph (e). 

(f) Send your reports electronically to 

the Designated Compliance Officer 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16071 

using an approved information format. 

If you want to use a different format, 

send us a written request with 

justification for a waiver. 

(g) 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 decrease 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 (g)(2). 

(3) If you or we determine anytime 

that errors mistakenly increase your 

balance of emission credits, you must 

correct the errors and recalculate the 

balance of emission credits. 

(h) We may modify these 

requirements for owners/operators 

required to submit reports because of 

their involvement in credit transferring. 

§ 1033.735 Required records. 

(a) You must organize and maintain 

your records as described in this 

section. We may review your records at 

any time. 

(b) Keep the records required by this 

section for eight years after the due date 

for the end-of-year report. You may not 

use emission credits on 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. 

(c) Keep a copy of the reports we 

require in § 1033.725 and § 1033.730. 

(d) Keep the following additional 

records for each locomotive you 

produce that generates or uses emission 

credits under the ABT program: 

(1) Engine family designation. 

(2) Locomotive identification number. 

(3) FEL. 

(4) Rated power and useful life. 

(5) Build date and assembly plant. 

(6) Purchaser and destination. 

(e) We may require you to keep 

additional records or to send us relevant 

information not required by this section. 

§ 1033.740 Credit restrictions. 

Use of emission credits generated 

under this part 1033 or 40 CFR part 92 

is restricted depending on the standards 

against which they were generated. 

(a) Credits from 40 CFR part 92. (1) 

PM credits generated under 40 CFR part 

92 may not be used under this part. 

(2) NOX credits generated under 40 

CFR part 92 may be used under this part 

in the same manner as NOX credits 

generated under this part. 

(b) General cycle restriction. 

Locomotives subject to both switch 

cycle standards and line-haul cycle 

standards (such as Tier 2 locomotives) 

may generate both switch and line-haul 

credits. Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, such credits may only 

be used to show compliance with 

standards for the same cycle for which 

they were generated. For example, a 

Tier 2 locomotive that is certified to a 

switch cycle NOX FEL below the 

applicable switch cycle standard and a 

line-haul cycle NOX FEL below the 

applicable line-haul cycle standard may 

generate switch cycle NOX credits for 

use in complying with switch cycle 

NOX standards and line-haul cycle NOX

credits for use in complying with linehaul cycle NOX standards. 

(c) Single cycle locomotives. As 

specified in § 1033.101, Tier 0 switch 

locomotives, Tier 3 and later switch 

locomotives, and Tier 4 and later linehaul locomotives are not subject to both 

switch cycle and line-haul cycle 

standards. 

(1) When using credits generated by 

locomotives covered by paragraph (b) of 

this section for single cycle locomotives 

covered by this paragraph (c), you must 

use both switch and line-haul credits as 

described in this paragraph (c)(1). 

(i) For locomotives subject only to 

switch cycle standards, calculate the 

negative switch credits for the credit 

using locomotive as specified in 

§ 1033.705. Such locomotives also 

generate an equal number of negative 

line-haul cycle credits (in Mg). 

(ii) For locomotives subject only to 

line-haul cycle standards, calculate the 

negative line-haul credits for the credit 

using locomotive as specified in 

§ 1033.705. Such locomotives also 

generate an equal number of negative 

switch cycle credits (in Mg). 

(2) Credits generated by Tier 0, Tier 3, 

or Tier 4 switch locomotives may be 

used to show compliance with any 

switch cycle or line-haul cycle 

standards. 

(3) Credits generated by any line-haul 

locomotives may not be used by Tier 3 

or later switch locomotives. 

(d) Tier 4 credit use. The number of 

Tier 4 locomotives that can be certified 

using credits in any year may not 

exceed 50 percent of the total number of 

Tier 4 locomotives you produce in that 

year for U.S. sales. 

(e) Other restrictions. Other sections 

of this part may specify additional 

restrictions for using emission credits 

under certain special provisions. 

§ 1033.745 Compliance with the provisions 

of this subpart. 

The provisions of this section apply to 

certificate holders. 

(a) For each engine family 

participating in the ABT program, the 

certificate of conformity is conditional 

upon full compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart during and 

after the model year. You are 

responsible to establish to our 

satisfaction that you fully comply with 

applicable requirements. We may void 

the certificate of conformity for an 

engine family if you fail to comply with 

any provisions of this subpart. 

(b) You may certify your engine 

family to an FEL above an applicable 

standard based on a projection that you 

will have enough emission credits to 

offset the deficit for the engine family. 

However, we may void the certificate of 

conformity if you cannot show in your 

final report that you have enough actual 

emission credits to offset a deficit for 

any pollutant in an engine family. 

(c) We may void the certificate of 

conformity for an engine family if you 

fail to keep records, send reports, or give 

us information we request. 

(d) You may ask for a hearing if we 

void your certificate under this section 

(see § 1033.920). 

§ 1033.750 Changing a locomotive’s FEL 

at remanufacture. 

Locomotives are generally required to 

be certified to the previously applicable 

standard or FEL when remanufactured. 

This section describes provisions that 

allow a remanufactured locomotive to 

be certified to a different FEL (higher or 

lower). 

(a) A remanufacturer may choose to 

certify a remanufacturing system to 

change the FEL of a locomotive from a 

previously applicable FEL or standard. 

Any locomotives remanufactured using 

that system are required to comply with 

the revised FEL for the remainder of 

their service lives, unless it is changed 

again under this section during a later 

remanufacture. Remanufacturers must 

notify the owner of the locomotive that 

it is required to comply with that FEL 

for the remainder of its service life. 

(b) Calculate the credits needed or 

generated as specified in § 1033.705, 

except as specified in this paragraph. If 

the locomotive was previously certified 

to an FEL for the pollutant, use the 

previously applicable FEL as the 

standard. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16072 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart I—Requirements for Owners 

and Operators 

§ 1033.801 Applicability. 

The requirements of this subpart are 

applicable to railroads and all other 

owners and operators of locomotives 

subject to the provisions of this part, 

except as otherwise specified. The 

prohibitions related to maintenance in 

§ 1033.815 also applies to anyone 

performing maintenance on a 

locomotive subject to the provisions of 

this part. 

§ 1033.805 Remanufacturing 

requirements. 

(a) See the definition of 

remanufacture in § 1033.901 to 

determine if you are remanufacturing 

your locomotive or engine. (Note: 

Replacing power assemblies one at a 

time may qualify as remanufacturing, 

depending on the interval between 

replacement.) 

(b) See the definition of ‘‘new’’ in 

§ 1033.901 to determine if 

remanufacturing your locomotive makes 

it subject to the requirements of this 

part. If the locomotive is considered to 

be new, it is subject to the certification 

requirements of this part, unless it is 

exempt under subpart G of this part. 

The standards to which your locomotive 

is subject will depend on factors such as 

the following: 

(1) Its date of original manufacture. 

(2) The FEL to which it was 

previously certified. 

(3) Its power rating (whether it is 

above or below 2300 hp). 

(4) The calendar year in which it is 

being remanufactured. 

(c) You may comply with the 

certification requirements of this part 

for your remanufactured locomotive by 

either obtaining your own certificate of 

conformity as specified in subpart C of 

this part or by having a certifying 

remanufacturer include your locomotive 

under its certificate of conformity. In 

either case, your remanufactured 

locomotive must be covered by a 

certificate before it is reintroduced into 

service. 

(d) Contact a certifying 

remanufacturer to have your locomotive 

included under its certificate of 

conformity. You must comply with the 

certificate holder’s emission-related 

installation instructions. 

(e) Failure to comply with this section 

is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1). 

§ 1033.810 In-use testing program. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to all Class I freight railroads. It does not 

apply to other owner/operators. 

(b) Testing requirements. Annually 

test a sample of locomotives in your 

fleet. For purposes of this section, your 

fleet includes both the locomotives that 

you own and the locomotives that you 

are leasing. Use the test procedures in 

subpart F of this part, unless we 

approve different procedures. 

(1) Except for the cases described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, test at 

least 0.15 percent of the average number 

of locomotives in your fleet during the 

previous calendar year (i.e., determine 

the number to be tested by multiplying 

the number of locomotives in the fleet 

by 0.0015 and rounding up to the next 

whole number). 

(2) In certain cases, you may test 

fewer locomotives: 

(i) If during the previous 5 years, no 

new locomotive emission standards 

have taken effect, the locomotive 

emission controls have not changed 

fundamentally (in any manner that 

could reasonably be expected to have 

the potential to significantly affect 

emissions durability), and testing has 

shown that the degree of compliance for 

tested locomotives is sufficiently high, 

then you are only required to test 0.10 

percent of the locomotives in your fleet. 

(ii) If during the previous 5 years, no 

new locomotive emission standards 

have taken effect, the locomotive 

emission controls have not changed 

fundamentally (in any manner that 

could reasonably be expected to have 

the potential to significantly affect 

emissions durability), testing has shown 

that the degree of compliance for tested 

locomotives is sufficiently high, and 

you have fewer than 500 locomotives in 

your fleet, then you are not required to 

test any locomotives. 

(iii) We may allow you to test a 

smaller number of locomotives if we 

determine that the number of tests 

otherwise required by this section is not 

necessary. 

(c) Test locomotive selection. To the 

extent possible, select locomotives from 

each manufacturer and remanufacturer, 

and from each tier level (e.g., Tier 0, 

Tier 1 and Tier 2) in proportion to their 

numbers in the your fleet. Exclude 

locomotives tested during the previous 

year. You may not exclude locomotives 

because of visible smoke, a history of 

durability problems, or other evidence 

of malmaintenance. 

(1) If possible, select locomotives that 

have been certified in compliance with 

requirements in this part (or 40 CFR part 

92), and that have been operated for at 

least 100 percent of their useful lives. If 

the number of certified locomotives that 

have been operated for at least 100 

percent of their useful lives is not large 

enough to fulfill the testing requirement, 

test locomotives still within their useful 

lives as follows: 

(i) Test locomotives in your fleet that 

are nearest to the end of their useful 

lives. You may identify such 

locomotives as a range of values 

representing the fraction of the useful 

life already used up for the locomotives. 

(ii) For example, you may determine 

that 20 percent of your fleet has been 

operated for at least 75 percent of their 

useful lives. In such a case, select 

locomotives for testing that have been 

operated for at least 75 percent of their 

useful lives. 

(2) We may require that you test 

specific locomotives, including 

locomotives that do not meet the criteria 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section. Otherwise, where there are 

multiple locomotives meeting the 

requirements of this paragraph (c), 

randomly select the locomotives to be 

tested from among those locomotives. 

(d) Reporting requirements. Report all 

testing done in compliance with the 

provisions of this section to us within 

30 calendar days after the end of each 

calendar year. At a minimum, include 

the following: 

(1) Your full corporate name and 

address. 

(2) For each locomotive tested, all the 

following: 

(i) Corporate name of the 

manufacturer and last remanufacturer(s) 

of the locomotive (including both 

certificate holder and installer, where 

different), and the corporate name of the 

manufacturer or last remanufacturer(s) 

of the engine if different than that of the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer(s) of the 

locomotive. 

(ii) Year (and month if known) of 

original manufacture of the locomotive 

and the engine, and the manufacturer’s 

model designation of the locomotive 

and manufacturer’s model designation 

of the engine, and the locomotive 

identification number. 

(iii) Year (and month if known) that 

the engine last underwent 

remanufacture, the engine 

remanufacturer’s designation that 

reflects (or most closely reflects) the 

engine after the last remanufacture, and 

the engine family identification. 

(iv) The number of MW-hrs and miles 

(where available) the locomotive has 

been operated since its last 

remanufacture. 

(v) The emission test results for all 

measured pollutants. 

(e) You do not have to submit a report 

for any year in which you performed no 

emission testing under this section. 

(f) You may submit equivalent 

emission data collected for other 

purposes instead of some or all of the 

test data required by this section. If we 

allow it in advance, you may report 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16073 

emission data collected using other 

testing or sampling procedures instead 

of some or all of the data specified by 

this section. 

(g) Submit all reports to the 

Designated Compliance Officer. 

(h) Failure to comply fully with this 

section is a violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(a)(2). 

§ 1033.815 Maintenance, operation, and 

repair. 

(a) Unless we allow otherwise, all 

owners of locomotives subject to the 

provisions of this part must ensure that 

all emission-related maintenance is 

performed on the locomotives, as 

specified in the maintenance 

instructions provided by the certifying 

manufacturer/remanufacturer in 

compliance with § 1033.125 (or 

maintenance that is equivalent to the 

maintenance specified by the certifying 

manufacturer/remanufacturer in terms 

of maintaining emissions performance). 

(b) Use good engineering judgment 

when performing maintenance of 

locomotives subject to the provisions of 

this part. You must perform all 

maintenance and repair such that you 

have a reasonable technical basis for 

believing the locomotive will continue 

(after the maintenance or repair) to meet 

the applicable emission standards and 

FELs to which it was certified. 

(c) The owner of the locomotive must 

keep records of all maintenance and 

repairs that could reasonably affect the 

emission performance of any locomotive 

subject to the provisions of this part. 

Keep these records for eight years. 

(d) In addition, for locomotives 

equipped with emission controls 

requiring the use of specific fuels, 

lubricants, or other fluids, you must 

comply with the manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer’s specifications for such 

fluids when operating the locomotives. 

For locomotives equipped with SCR 

systems requiring the use of urea or 

other reductants, you must report to us 

within 30 days of any operation of such 

locomotives without the appropriate 

urea other reductants. 

(e) Failure to fully comply with this 

section is a violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(b). 

§ 1033.820 In-use locomotives. 

(a) We may require you to supply inuse locomotives to us for testing. We 

will specify a reasonable time and place 

at which you must supply the 

locomotives and a reasonable period 

during which we will keep them for 

testing. We will make reasonable 

allowances for you to schedule the 

supply of locomotives to minimize 

disruption of your operations. The 

number of locomotives that you must 

supply is limited as follows: 

(1) We will not require a Class I 

railroad to supply more than five 

locomotives per railroad per calendar 

year. 

(2) We will not require a non-Class I 

railroad (or other entity subject to the 

provisions of this subpart) to supply 

more than two locomotives per railroad 

per calendar year. We will request 

locomotives under this paragraph (a)(2) 

only for purposes that cannot be 

accomplished using locomotives 

supplied under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

(b) You must make reasonable efforts 

to supply manufacturers and 

remanufacturers of locomotives with the 

test locomotives needed to fulfill the inuse testing requirements in subpart E of 

this part. 

(c) Failure to fully comply with this 

section is a violation of 40 CFR 

1068.101(a)(2). 

§ 1033.825 Refueling requirements. 

(a) If your locomotive operates using 

a volatile fuel, your refueling equipment 

must be designed and used to minimize 

the escape of fuel vapors. This means 

you may not use refueling equipment in 

a way that renders any refueling 

emission controls inoperative or reduces 

their effectiveness. 

(b) If your locomotive operates using 

a gaseous fuel, the hoses used to refuel 

it may not be designed to be bled or 

vented to the atmosphere under normal 

operating conditions. 

(c) Failing to fully comply with the 

requirements of this section is a 

violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b). 

Subpart J—Definitions and Other 

Reference Information 

§ 1033.901 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part. The definitions apply to all 

subparts unless we note otherwise. All 

undefined terms have the meaning the 

Clean Air Act gives to them. The 

definitions follow: 

Adjustable parameter means any 

device, system, or element of design that 

someone can adjust (including those 

which are difficult to access) and that, 

if adjusted, may affect emissions or 

locomotive performance during 

emission testing or normal in-use 

operation. This includes, but is not 

limited to, parameters related to 

injection timing and fueling rate. You 

may ask us to exclude a parameter if 

you show us that it will not be adjusted 

in a way that affects emissions during 

in-use operation. 

Aftertreatment means relating to a 

catalytic converter, particulate filter, or 

any other system, component, or 

technology mounted downstream of the 

exhaust valve (or exhaust port), whose 

design function is to reduce emissions 

in the locomotive exhaust before it is 

exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) is not 

aftertreatment. 

Alcohol fuel means a fuel consisting 

primarily (more than 50 percent by 

weight) of one or more alcohols: e.g., 

methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol. 

Alternator/generator efficiency means 

the ratio of the electrical power output 

from the alternator/generator to the 

mechanical power input to the 

alternator/generator at the operating 

point. Note that the alternator/generator 

efficiency may be different at different 

operating points. 

Applicable emission standard or 

applicable standard means a standard to 

which a locomotive is subject; or, where 

a locomotive has been or is being 

certified to another standard or FEL, the 

FEL or other standard to which the 

locomotive has been or is being certified 

is the applicable standard. This 

definition does not apply to Subpart H 

of this part. 

Auxiliary emission control device 

means any element of design that senses 

temperature, motive speed, engine RPM, 

transmission gear, or any other 

parameter for the purpose of activating, 

modulating, delaying, or deactivating 

the operation of any part of the 

emission-control system. 

Auxiliary engine means a nonroad 

engine that provides hotel power or 

power during idle, but does not provide 

power to propel the locomotive. 

Auxiliary power means the power 

provided by the main propulsion engine 

to operate accessories such as cooling 

fans. 

Averaging means the exchange of 

emission credits among engine families 

within a given manufacturer’s, or 

remanufacturer’s product line. 

Banking means the retention of 

emission credits by a credit holder for 

use in future calendar year averaging or 

trading as permitted by the regulations 

in this part. 

Brake power means the sum of the 

alternator/generator input power and 

the mechanical accessory power, 

excluding any power required to fuel, 

lubricate, heat, or cool the engine or to 

operate aftertreatment devices. 

Calibration means the set of 

specifications, including tolerances, 

specific to a particular design, version, 

or application of a component, or 

components, or assembly capable of 

functionally describing its operation 

over its working range. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16074 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Certification means the process of 

obtaining a certificate of conformity for 

an engine family that complies with the 

emission standards and requirements in 

this part, or relating to that process. 

Certified emission level means the 

highest deteriorated emission level in an 

engine family for a given pollutant from 

a given test cycle. 

Class I freight railroad means a Class 

I railroad that primarily transports 

freight rather than passengers. 

Class I railroad means a railroad that 

has been classified as a Class I railroad 

by the Surface Transportation Board. 

Class II railroad means a railroad that 

has been classified as a Class II railroad 

by the Surface Transportation Board. 

Class III railroad means a railroad that 

has been classified as a Class III railroad 

by the Surface Transportation Board. 

Clean Air Act means the Clean Air 

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Configuration means a unique 

combination of locomotive hardware 

and calibration within an engine family. 

Locomotives within a single 

configuration differ only with respect to 

normal production variability (or factors 

unrelated to engine performance or 

emissions). 

Crankcase emissions means airborne 

substances emitted to the atmosphere 

from any part of the locomotive 

crankcase’s ventilation or lubrication 

systems. The crankcase is the housing 

for the crankshaft and other related 

internal parts. 

Design certify or certify by design 

means to certify a locomotive based on 

inherent design characteristics rather 

than your test data, such as allowed 

under § 1033.625. All other 

requirements of this part apply for such 

locomotives. 

Designated Compliance Officer means 

the Manager, Heavy Duty and Nonroad 

Engine Group (6403–), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

Designated Enforcement Officer 

means the Director, Air Enforcement 

Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Deteriorated emission level means the 

emission level that results from 

applying the appropriate deterioration 

factor to the official emission result of 

the emission-data locomotive. 

Deterioration factor means the 

relationship between emissions at the 

end of useful life and emissions at the 

low-hour test point, 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. 

Discrete-mode means relating to the 

discrete-mode type of steady-state test 

described in § 1033.510. 

Emission control system means any 

device, system, or element of design that 

controls or reduces the regulated 

emissions from a locomotive. 

Emission credits represent the amount 

of emission reduction or exceedance, by 

a locomotive engine family, below or 

above the emission standard, 

respectively. Emission reductions below 

the standard are considered as ‘‘positive 

credits,’’ while emission exceedances 

above the standard are considered as 

‘‘negative credits.’’ In addition, 

‘‘projected credits’’ refer to emission 

credits based on the projected 

applicable production/sales volume of 

the engine family. ‘‘Reserved credits’’

are emission credits generated within a 

calendar year waiting to be reported to 

EPA at the end of the calendar year. 

‘‘Actual credits’’ refer to emission 

credits based on actual applicable 

production/sales volume as contained 

in the end-of-year reports submitted to 

EPA. 

Emission-data locomotive means a 

locomotive or engine that is tested for 

certification. This includes locomotives 

tested to establish deterioration factors. 

Emission-related maintenance means 

maintenance that substantially affects 

emissions or is likely to substantially 

affect emission deterioration. 

Engine family has the meaning given 

in § 1033.230. 

Engine used in a locomotive means an 

engine incorporated into a locomotive 

or intended for incorporation into a 

locomotive. 

Engineering analysis means a 

summary of scientific and/or 

engineering principles and facts that 

support a conclusion made by a 

manufacturer/remanufacturer, with 

respect to compliance with the 

provisions of this part. 

EPA Enforcement Officer means any 

officer or employee of the 

Environmental Protection Agency so 

designated in writing by the 

Administrator or his/her designee. 

Exempted means relating to a 

locomotive that is not required to meet 

otherwise applicable standards. 

Exempted locomotives must conform to 

regulatory conditions specified for an 

exemption in this part 1033 or in 40 

CFR part 1068. Exempted locomotives 

are deemed to be ‘‘subject to’’ the 

standards of this part, even though they 

are not required to comply with the 

otherwise applicable requirements. 

Locomotives exempted with respect to a 

certain tier of standards may be required 

to comply with an earlier tier of 

standards as a condition of the 

exemption; for example, locomotives 

exempted with respect to Tier 3 

standards may be required to comply 

with Tier 2 standards. 

Excluded means relating to a 

locomotive that either has been 

determined not to be a locomotive (as 

defined in this section) or otherwise 

excluded under section § 1033.5. 

Excluded locomotives are not subject to 

the standards of this part 

Exhaust emissions means substances 

(i.e., gases and particles) emitted to the 

atmosphere from any opening 

downstream from the exhaust port or 

exhaust valve of a locomotive engine. 

Exhaust-gas recirculation means a 

technology that reduces emissions by 

routing exhaust gases that had been 

exhausted from the combustion 

chamber(s) back into the locomotive to 

be mixed with incoming air before or 

during combustion. The use of valve 

timing to increase the amount of 

residual exhaust gas in the combustion 

chamber(s) that is mixed with incoming 

air before or during combustion is not 

considered exhaust-gas recirculation for 

the purposes of this part. 

Freshly manufactured locomotive 

means a new locomotive that contains 

fewer than 25 percent previously used 

parts (weighted by the dollar value of 

the parts) as described in § 1033.640. 

Freshly manufactured engine means a 

new engine that has not been 

remanufactured. An engine becomes 

freshly manufactured when it is 

originally manufactured. 

Family emission limit (FEL) means an 

emission level declared by the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer to serve in 

place of an otherwise applicable 

emission standard under the ABT 

program in subpart H of this part. The 

family emission limit must be expressed 

to the same number of decimal places as 

the emission standard it replaces. The 

family emission limit serves as the 

emission standard for the engine family 

with respect to all required testing. 

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. 

Fuel type means a general category of 

fuels such as diesel fuel or natural gas. 

There can be multiple grades within a 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16075 

single fuel type, such as high-sulfur or 

low-sulfur diesel fuel. 

Gaseous fuel means a fuel which is a 

gas at standard temperature and 

pressure. This includes both natural gas 

and liquefied petroleum gas. 

Good engineering judgment means 

judgments made consistent with 

generally accepted scientific and 

engineering principles and all available 

relevant information. See 40 CFR 1068.5 

for the administrative process we use to 

evaluate good engineering judgment. 

Green engine factor means a factor 

that is applied to emission 

measurements from a locomotive or 

locomotive engine that has had little or 

no service accumulation. The green 

engine factor adjusts emission 

measurements to be equivalent to 

emission measurements from a 

locomotive or locomotive engine that 

has had approximately 300 hours of use. 

High-altitude means relating to an 

altitude greater than 4000 feet (1220 

meters) and less than 7000 feet (2135 

meters), or equivalent observed 

barometric test conditions 

(approximately 79 to 88 kPa). 

High-sulfur diesel fuel means one of 

the following: 

(1) For in-use fuels, high-sulfur diesel 

fuel means a diesel fuel with a 

maximum sulfur concentration greater 

than 500 parts per million. 

(2) For testing, high-sulfur diesel fuel 

has the meaning given in 40 CFR part 

1065. 

Hotel power means the power 

provided by an engine on a locomotive 

to operate equipment on passenger cars 

of a train; e.g., heating and air 

conditioning, lights, etc. 

Hydrocarbon (HC) means the 

hydrocarbon group (THC, NMHC, or 

THCE) on which the emission standards 

are based for each fuel type as described 

in § 1033.101. 

Identification number means a unique 

specification (for example, a model 

number/serial number combination) 

that allows someone to distinguish a 

particular locomotive from other similar 

locomotives. 

Idle speed means the speed, 

expressed as the number of revolutions 

of the crankshaft per unit of time (e.g., 

rpm), at which the engine is set to 

operate when not under load for 

purposes of propelling the locomotive. 

There are typically one or two idle 

speeds on a locomotive as follows: 

(1) Normal idle speed means the idle 

speed for the idle throttle-notch position 

for locomotives that have one throttlenotch position, or the highest idle speed 

for locomotives that have two idle 

throttle-notch positions. 

(2) Low idle speed means the lowest 

idle speed for locomotives that have two 

idle throttle-notch positions. 

Inspect and qualify means to 

determine that a previously used 

component or system meets all 

applicable criteria listed for the 

component or system in a certificate of 

conformity for remanufacturing (such as 

to determine that the component or 

system is functionally equivalent to one 

that has not been used previously). 

Installer means an individual or entity 

that assembles remanufactured 

locomotives or locomotive engines. 

Liquefied petroleum gas means the 

commercial product marketed as 

propane or liquefied petroleum gas. 

Locomotive means a self-propelled 

piece of on-track equipment designed 

for moving or propelling cars that are 

designed to carry freight, passengers or 

other equipment, but which itself is not 

designed or intended to carry freight, 

passengers (other than those operating 

the locomotive) or other equipment. The 

following other equipment are not 

locomotives (see 40 CFR parts 86, 89, 

and 1039 for this diesel-powered 

equipment): 

(1) Equipment which is designed for 

operation both on highways and rails is 

not a locomotive. 

(2) Specialized railroad equipment for 

maintenance, construction, postaccident recovery of equipment, and 

repairs; and other similar equipment, 

are not locomotives. 

(3) Vehicles propelled by engines 

with total rated power of less than 750 

kW (1006 hp) are not locomotives, 

unless the owner (which may be a 

manufacturer) chooses to have the 

equipment certified to meet the 

requirements of this part (under 

§ 1033.615). Where equipment is 

certified as a locomotive pursuant to 

this paragraph (3), it is subject to the 

requirements of this part for the 

remainder of its service life. For 

locomotives propelled by two or more 

engines, the total rated power is the sum 

of the rated power of each engine. 

Low-hour means relating to a 

locomotive with stabilized emissions 

and represents the undeteriorated 

emission level. This would generally 

involve less than 300 hours of 

operation. 

Low mileage locomotive means a 

locomotive during the interval between 

the time that normal assembly 

operations and adjustments are 

completed and the time that either 

10,000 miles of locomotive operation or 

300 additional operating hours have 

been accumulated (including emission 

testing if performed). 

Low-sulfur diesel fuel means one of 

the following: 

(1) For in-use fuels, low-sulfur diesel 

fuel means a diesel fuel marketed as 

low-sulfur fuel with a sulfur 

concentration of 15 to 500 parts per 

million. 

(2) For testing, low-sulfur diesel fuel 

has the meaning given in 40 CFR part 

1065. 

Malfunction means a condition in 

which the operation of a component in 

a locomotive or locomotive engine 

occurs in a manner other than that 

specified by the certifying 

manufacturer/remanufacturer (e.g., as 

specified in the application for 

certification); or the operation of the 

locomotive or locomotive engine in that 

condition. 

Manufacture means the physical and 

engineering process of designing, 

constructing, and assembling a 

locomotive or locomotive engine. 

Manufacturer has the meaning given 

in section 216(1) of the Clean Air Act 

with respect to freshly manufactured 

locomotives or engines. In general, this 

term includes any person who 

manufactures a locomotive or engine for 

sale in the United States or otherwise 

introduces a new locomotive or engine 

into commerce in the United States. 

This includes importers who import 

locomotives or engines for resale. 

Manufacturer/remanufacturer means 

the manufacturer of a freshly 

manufactured locomotive or the 

remanufacturer of a remanufactured 

locomotive, as applicable. 

Model year means a calendar year in 

which a locomotive is manufactured or 

remanufactured. 

New when relating to a locomotive or 

engine has the meaning given in 

paragraph (1) of this definition, except 

as specified in paragraph (2) of this 

definition: 

(1) A locomotive or engine is new if 

its equitable or legal title has never been 

transferred to an ultimate purchaser. 

Where the equitable or legal title to a 

locomotive or engine is not transferred 

prior to its being placed into service, the 

locomotive or engine ceases to be new 

when it is placed into service. A 

locomotive or engine also becomes new 

if it is remanufactured (as defined in 

this section). A remanufactured 

locomotive or engine ceases to be new 

when placed back into service. With 

respect to imported locomotives or 

locomotive engines, the term ‘‘new 

locomotive’’ or ‘‘new locomotive 

engine’’ also means a locomotive or 

locomotive engine that is not covered by 

a certificate of conformity under this 

part at the time of importation, and that 

was manufactured or remanufactured 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16076 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

after the effective date of the emission 

standards in this part which is 

applicable to such locomotive or engine 

(or which would be applicable to such 

locomotive or engine had it been 

manufactured or remanufactured for 

importation into the United States). 

Note that replacing an engine in one 

locomotive with an unremanufactured 

used engine from a different locomotive 

does not make a locomotive new. 

(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of 

this definition do not apply for the 

following cases: 

(i) Locomotives and engines that were 

originally manufactured before January 

1, 1973 are not considered to become 

new when remanufactured unless they 

have been upgraded (as defined in this 

section). The provisions of paragraph (1) 

of this definition apply for locomotives 

that have been upgraded. 

(ii) Locomotives that are owned and 

operated by a small railroad and that 

have never been remanufactured into a 

certified configuration are not 

considered to become new when 

remanufactured. The provisions of 

paragraph (1) of this definition apply for 

locomotives that have been 

remanufactured into a certified 

configuration. 

Nonconforming means relating to a 

locomotive that is not covered by a 

certificate of conformity prior to 

importation or being offered for 

importation (or for which such coverage 

has not been adequately demonstrated 

to EPA); or a locomotive which was 

originally covered by a certificate of 

conformity, but which is not in a 

certified configuration, or otherwise 

does not comply with the conditions of 

that certificate of conformity. (Note: 

Domestic locomotives and locomotive 

engines not covered by a certificate of 

conformity prior to their introduction 

into U.S. commerce are considered to be 

noncomplying locomotives and 

locomotive engines.) 

Non-locomotive-specific engine 

means an engine that is sold for and 

used in non-locomotive applications 

much more than for locomotive 

applications. 

Nonmethane hydrocarbon has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

This generally means the difference 

between the emitted mass of total 

hydrocarbons and the emitted mass of 

methane. 

Nonroad means relating to a nonroad 

engines as defined in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

Official emission result means the 

measured emission rate for an emissiondata locomotive on a given duty cycle 

before the application of any 

deterioration factor, but after the 

application of regeneration adjustment 

factors, green engine factors, and/or 

humidity correction factors. 

Opacity means the fraction of a beam 

of light, expressed in percent, which 

fails to penetrate a plume of smoke, as 

measured by the procedure specified in 

§ 1033.515. 

Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR part 1065. 

Original manufacture means the event 

of freshly manufacturing a locomotive 

or locomotive engine. The date of 

original manufacture is the date of final 

assembly, except as provided in 

§ 1033.655. Where a locomotive is 

manufactured under § 1033.620(b), the 

date of original manufacture is the date 

on which the final assembly of 

locomotive was originally scheduled. 

See also § 1033.640 

Original remanufacture means the 

first remanufacturing of a locomotive at 

which the locomotive is subject to the 

emission standards of this part. 

Owner/operator means the owner 

and/or operator of a locomotive. 

Owners manual means a written or 

electronic collection of instructions 

provided to ultimate purchasers to 

describe the basic operation of the 

locomotive. 

Particulate trap means a filtering 

device that is designed to physically 

trap all particulate matter above a 

certain size. 

Passenger locomotive means a 

locomotive designed and constructed 

for the primary purpose of propelling 

passenger trains, and providing power 

to the passenger cars of the train for 

such functions as heating, lighting and 

air conditioning. 

Petroleum fuel means gasoline or 

diesel fuel or another liquid fuel 

primarily derived from crude oil. 

Placed into service means put into 

initial use for its intended purpose after 

becoming new. 

Power assembly means the 

components of an engine in which 

combustion of fuel occurs, and consists 

of the cylinder, piston and piston rings, 

valves and ports for admission of charge 

air and discharge of exhaust gases, fuel 

injection components and controls, 

cylinder head and associated 

components. 

Primary fuel means the type of fuel 

(e.g., diesel fuel) that is consumed in the 

greatest quantity (mass basis) when the 

locomotive is operated in use. 

Produce means to manufacture or 

remanufacture. Where a certificate 

holder does not actually assemble the 

locomotives or locomotive engines that 

it manufactures or remanufactures, 

produce means to allow other entities to 

assemble locomotives under the 

certificate holder’s certificate. 

Railroad means a commercial entity 

that operates locomotives to transport 

passengers or freight. 

Ramped-modal means relating to the 

ramped-modal type of testing in subpart 

F of this part. 

Rated power has the meaning given in 

§ 1033.140. 

Refurbish has the meaning given in 

§ 1033.640. 

Remanufacture means one of the 

following: 

(1)(i) To replace, or inspect and 

qualify, each and every power assembly 

of a locomotive or locomotive engine, 

whether during a single maintenance 

event or cumulatively within a five year 

period. 

(ii) To upgrade a locomotive or 

locomotive engine. 

(iii) To convert a locomotive or 

locomotive engine to enable it to operate 

using a fuel other than it was originally 

manufactured to use. 

(iv) To install a remanufactured 

engine or a freshly manufactured engine 

into a previously used locomotive. 

(v) To repair a locomotive engine that 

does not contain power assemblies to a 

condition that is equivalent to or better 

than its original condition with respect 

to reliability and fuel consumption. 

(2) Remanufacture also means the act 

of remanufacturing. 

Remanufacture system or 

remanufacturing system means all 

components (or specifications for 

components) and instructions necessary 

to remanufacture a locomotive or 

locomotive engine in accordance with 

applicable requirements of this part or 

40 CFR part 92. 

Remanufactured locomotive means 

either a locomotive powered by a 

remanufactured locomotive engine, or a 

repowered locomotive. 

Remanufactured locomotive engine 

means a locomotive engine that has 

been remanufactured. 

Remanufacturer has the meaning 

given to ‘‘manufacturer’’ in section 

216(1) of the Clean Air Act with respect 

to remanufactured locomotives. (See 

§§ 1033.1 and 1033.601 for applicability 

of this term.) This term includes: 

(1) Any person that is engaged in the 

manufacture or assembly of 

remanufactured locomotives or 

locomotive engines, such as persons 

who: 

(i) Design or produce the emissionrelated parts used in remanufacturing. 

(ii) Install parts in an existing 

locomotive or locomotive engine to 

remanufacture it. 

(iii) Own or operate the locomotive or 

locomotive engine and provide 

specifications as to how an engine is to 

be remanufactured (i.e., specifying who 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16077 

will perform the work, when the work 

is to be performed, what parts are to be 

used, or how to calibrate the adjustable 

parameters of the engine). 

(2) Any person who imports 

remanufactured locomotives or 

remanufactured locomotive engines. 

Repower means replacement of the 

engine in a previously used locomotive 

with a freshly manufactured locomotive 

engine. See § 1033.640. 

Repowered locomotive means a 

locomotive that has been repowered 

with a freshly manufactured engine. 

Revoke has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1068.30. In general this means to 

terminate the certificate or an 

exemption for an engine family. 

Round means to round numbers as 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Service life means the total life of a 

locomotive. Service life begins when the 

locomotive is originally manufactured 

and continues until the locomotive is 

permanently removed from service. 

Small railroad means a railroad 

meeting the criterion of paragraph (1) or 

(2) of this definition, but not the 

criterion of paragraph (3) of this 

definition. For the purpose of this part, 

the number of employees includes all 

employees of the railroad’s parent 

company, if applicable. 

(1) Line-haul railroads with 1,500 or 

fewer employees are small railroads. 

(2) Local and terminal railroads with 

500 or fewer employees are small 

railroads. 

(3) Intercity passenger and commuter 

railroads are excluded from this 

definition of small railroad. 

Small manufacturer means a 

manufacturer/remanufacturer with 

1,000 or fewer employees. For purposes 

of this part, the number of employees 

includes all employees of the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer’s parent 

company, if applicable. 

Specified adjustable range means the 

range of allowable settings for an 

adjustable component specified by a 

certificate of conformity. 

Specified by a certificate of 

conformity or specified in a certificate of 

conformity means stated or otherwise 

specified in a certificate of conformity 

or an approved application for 

certification. 

Sulfur-sensitive technology means an 

emission-control technology that 

experiences a significant drop in 

emission control performance or 

emission-system durability when a 

locomotive is operated on low-sulfur 

fuel (i.e., fuel with a sulfur 

concentration of 300 to 500 ppm) as 

compared to when it is operated on 

ultra low-sulfur fuel (i.e., fuel with a 

sulfur concentration less than 15 ppm). 

Exhaust-gas recirculation is not a sulfursensitive technology. 

Suspend has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1068.30. In general this means to 

temporarily discontinue the certificate 

or an exemption for an engine family. 

Switch locomotive means a 

locomotive that is powered by an engine 

with a maximum rated power (or a 

combination of engines having a total 

rated power) of 2300 hp or less. 

Test locomotive means a locomotive 

or engine in a test sample. 

Test sample means the collection of 

locomotives or engines selected from 

the population of an engine family for 

emission testing. This may include 

testing for certification, production-line 

testing, or in-use testing. 

Tier 1 means relating to the Tier 1 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1033.101. 

Tier 2 means relating to the Tier 2 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1033.101. 

Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1033.101. 

Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1033.101. 

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 ratio of the equivalent 

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. 

Ultimate purchaser means the first 

person who in good faith purchases a 

new locomotive for purposes other than 

resale. 

Ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel means one 

of the following: 

(1) For in-use fuels, ultra low-sulfur 

diesel fuel means a diesel fuel with a 

maximum sulfur concentration of 15 

parts per million. 

(2) For testing, ultra low-sulfur diesel 

fuel has the meaning given in 40 CFR 

part 1065. 

Upcoming model year means for an 

engine family the model year after the 

one currently in production. 

Upgrade means to modify a 

locomotive that was originally 

manufactured prior to January 1, 1973 

(or a locomotive that was originally 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

1973, and that is not subject to the 

emission standards of this part), such 

that it is intended to comply with the 

Tier 0 standards. Upgrading is a type of 

remanufacturing. See § 1033.615. 

U.S.-directed production volume 

means the number of locomotives, 

subject to the requirements of this part, 

produced by a manufacturer/ 

remanufacturer for which the 

manufacturer/remanufacturer has a 

reasonable assurance that sale was or 

will be made to ultimate purchasers in 

the United States. 

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 new locomotive is 

required to comply with all applicable 

emission standards. See § 1033.101(g). 

Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR 

1068.30. In general this means to 

invalidate a certificate or an exemption 

both retroactively and prospectively. 

Volatile fuel means a volatile liquid 

fuel or any fuel that is a gas at 

atmospheric pressure. Gasoline, natural 

gas, and LPG are volatile fuels. 

Volatile liquid fuel means any liquid 

fuel other than diesel or biodiesel that 

is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and 

has a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 

2.0 pounds per square inch. 

We (us, our) means the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and any authorized representatives. 

§ 1033.905 Symbols, acronyms, and 

abbreviations. 

The following symbols, acronyms, 

and abbreviations apply to this part: 

AECD auxiliary emission control device. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations. 

CO carbon monoxide. 

CO2 carbon dioxide. 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency. 

FEL Family Emission Limit. 

g/bhp-hr grams per brake horsepowerhour. 

HC hydrocarbon. 

hp horsepower. 

LPG liquefied petroleum gas. 

LSD low sulfur diesel. 

MW megawatt. 

NIST National Institute of Standards 

and Technology. 

NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbons. 

NOX oxides of nitrogen. 

PM particulate matter. 

rpm revolutions per minute. 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers. 

SCR selective catalytic reduction. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16078 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

SEA Selective Enforcement Audit. 

THC total hydrocarbon. 

THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent. 

ULSD ultra low sulfur diesel. 

U.S.C. United States Code. 

§ 1033.915 Confidential information. 

(a) Clearly show what you consider 

confidential by marking, circling, 

bracketing, stamping, or some other 

method. 

(b) We will store your confidential 

information as described in 40 CFR part 

2. Also, we will disclose it only as 

specified in 40 CFR part 2. This applies 

both to any information you send us and 

to any information we collect from 

inspections, audits, or other site visits. 

(c) If you send us a second copy 

without the confidential information, 

we will assume it contains nothing 

confidential whenever we need to 

release information from it. 

(d) If you send us information without 

claiming it is confidential, we may make 

it available to the public without further 

notice to you, as described in 40 CFR 

2.204. 

§ 1033.920 How to request a hearing. 

(a) You may request a hearing under 

certain circumstances, as described 

elsewhere in this part. To do this, you 

must file a written request, including a 

description of your objection and any 

supporting data, within 30 days after we 

make a decision. 

(b) For a hearing you request under 

the provisions of this part, we will 

approve your request if we find that 

your request raises a substantial factual 

issue. 

(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we 

will use the procedures specified in 40 

CFR part 1068, subpart G. 

13. A new part 1042 is added to 

subchapter U of chapter I to read as 

follows: 

PART 1042—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE MARINE 

COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES 

AND VESSELS 

Sec. 

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability 

1042.1 Applicability. 

1042.2 Who is responsible for compliance? 

1042.5 Exclusions. 

1042.10 Organization of this part. 

1042.15 Do any other regulation parts apply 

to me? 

Subpart B—Emission Standards and 

Related Requirements 

1042.101 Exhaust emission standards. 

1042.107 Evaporative emission standards. 

1042.110 Recording urea use and other 

diagnostic functions. 

1042.115 Other requirements. 

1042.120 Emission-related warranty 

requirements. 

1042.125 Maintenance instructions for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines. 

1042.130 Installation instructions for vessel 

manufacturers. 

1042.135 Labeling. 

1042.140 Maximum engine power, 

displacement, and power density. 

1042.145 Interim provisions. 

Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families 

1042.201 General requirements for 

obtaining a certificate of conformity. 

1042.205 Application requirements. 

1042.210 Preliminary approval. 

1042.220 Amending maintenance 

instructions. 

1042.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

1042.230 Engine families. 

1042.235 Emission testing required for a 

certificate of conformity. 

1042.240 Demonstrating compliance with 

exhaust emission standards. 

1042.245 Deterioration factors. 

1042.250 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

1042.255 EPA decisions. 

Subpart D—Testing Production-line 

Engines 

1042.301 General provisions. 

1042.305 Preparing and testing productionline engines. 

1042.310 Engine selection. 

1042.315 Determining compliance. 

1042.320 What happens if one of my 

production-line engines fails to meet 

emission standards? 

1042.325 What happens if an engine family 

fails the production-line testing 

requirements? 

1042.330 Selling engines from an engine 

family with a suspended certificate of 

conformity. 

1042.335 Reinstating suspended 

certificates. 

1042.340 When may EPA revoke my 

certificate under this subpart and how 

may I sell these engines again? 

1042.345 Reporting. 

1042.350 Recordkeeping. 

Subpart E—In-use Testing 

1042.401 General Provisions. 

Subpart F—Test Procedures 

1042.501 How do I run a valid emission 

test? 

1042.505 Testing engines using discretemode or ramped-modal duty cycles. 

1042.515 Test procedures related to not-toexceed standards. 

1042.520 What testing must I perform to 

establish deterioration factors? 

1042.525 How do I adjust emission levels to 

account for infrequently regenerating 

aftertreatment devices? 

Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions 

1042.601 General compliance provisions for 

marine engines and vessels. 

1042.605 Dressing engines already certified 

to other standards for nonroad or heavyduty highway engines for marine use. 

1042.610 Certifying auxiliary marine 

engines to land-based standards. 

1042.620 Engines used solely for 

competition. 

1042.630 Personal-use exemption. 

1042.640 Special provisions for branded 

engines. 

1042.660 Requirements for vessel 

manufacturers, owners, and operators. 

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and 

Trading for Certification 

1042.701 General provisions. 

1042.705 Generating and calculating 

emission credits. 

1042.710 Averaging emission credits. 

1042.715 Banking emission credits. 

1042.720 Trading emission credits. 

1042.725 Information required for the 

application for certification. 

1042.730 ABT reports. 

1042.735 Recordkeeping. 

1042.745 Noncompliance. 

Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference 

Information 

1042.801 Definitions. 

1042.805 Symbols, acronyms, and 

abbreviations. 

1042.810 Reference materials. 

1042.815 Confidential information. 

1042.820 Hearings. 

1042.825 Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Appendix I to Part 1042—Summary of 

Previous Emission Standards 

Appendix II to Part 1042—Steady-State Duty 

Cycles 

Appendix III to Part 1042—Not-to-Exceed 

Zones 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q. 

Subpart A—Overview and Applicability 

§ 1042.1 Applicability. 

Except as provided in § 1042.5, the 

regulations in this part 1042 apply for 

all new compression-ignition marine 

engines with per-cylinder displacement 

below 30.0 liters per cylinder and 

vessels containing such engines. See 

§ 1042.801 for the definitions of engines 

and vessels considered to be new. This 

part 1042 applies as follows: 

(a) This part 1042 applies starting 

with the model years noted in the 

following tables: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16079 

TABLE 1 OF § 1042.1.—PART 1042 APPLICABILITY BY MODEL YEAR

Engine category Maximum engine power Displacement 

(L/cyl) Model year 

kW <75 .................................. All .................................................... 2009 

75 ≤ kW < 3700 ..................... disp.<0.9 .......................................... 2012 

Category 1a ............................................................................ ................................................ 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 ............................. 7.0 ≤ disp. <15.0 ............................. 2013 

Category 2 ............................................................................. kW > 3700 ............................. ......................................................... 2014 

All ........................................... 15 ≤ disp. < 30 ................................ 2014 

aThis part 1042 applies to commercial Category 1 engines with power density above 35 kW/L starting in the 2017 model year for engines 

above 600 kW and below 1400 kW, and in the 2016 model year for engines at or above 1400 kW and at or below 3700 kW. 

(b) [Reserved] 

(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 

1042.801 apply for new engines used 

solely for competition beginning 

January 1, 2009. 

§ 1042.2 Who is responsible for 

compliance? 

The regulations in this part 1042 

contain provisions that affect both 

engine manufacturers and others. 

However, the requirements of this part 

are generally addressed to the engine 

manufacturer. The term ‘‘you’’ generally 

means the engine manufacturer, as 

defined in § 1042.801, especially for 

issues related to certification (including 

production-line testing, reporting, etc.). 

§ 1042.5 Exclusions. 

This part does not apply to the 

following marine engines: 

(a) Foreign vessels. The requirements 

and prohibitions of this part do not 

apply to engines installed on foreign 

vessels, as defined in § 1042.801. 

(b) Hobby engines. Engines with percylinder displacement below 50 cubic 

centimeters are not subject to the 

provisions of this part 1042. 

§ 1042.10 Organization of this part. 

This part 1042 is divided into the 

following subparts: 

(a) Subpart A of this part defines the 

applicability of this part 1042 and gives 

an overview of regulatory requirements. 

(b) Subpart B of this part describes the 

emission standards and other 

requirements that must be met to certify 

engines under this part. Note that 

§ 1042.145 discusses certain interim 

requirements and compliance 

provisions that apply only for a limited 

time. 

(c) Subpart C of this part describes 

how to apply for a certificate of 

conformity. 

(d) Subpart D of this part describes 

general provisions for testing 

production-line engines. 

(e) Subpart E of this part describes 

general provisions for testing in-use 

engines. 

(f) Subpart F of this part and 40 CFR 

1065 describe how to test your engines. 

(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR 

part 1068 describe requirements, 

prohibitions, and other provisions that 

apply to engine manufacturers, vessel 

manufacturers, owners, operators, 

rebuilders, and all others. 

(h) Subpart H of this part describes 

how you may generate and use emission 

credits to certify your engines. 

(i) Subpart I of this part contains 

definitions and other reference 

information. 

§ 1042.15 Do any other regulation parts 

apply to me? 

(a) 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.) 

(b) Part 1065 of this chapter describes 

procedures and equipment 

specifications for testing engines. 

Subpart F of this part 1042 describes 

how to apply the provisions of part 1065 

of this chapter to determine whether 

engines meet the emission standards in 

this part. 

(c) 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. 

(d) Other parts of this chapter apply 

if referenced in this part. 

Subpart B—Emission Standards and 

Related Requirements 

§ 1042.101 Exhaust emission standards. 

(a) 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. 

(2) The CO emission standards in this 

paragraph (a)(2) apply starting with the 

applicable model year shown for Tier 3 

standards in Table 1 of this section. 

These standards continue to apply for 

Tier 4 engines. The following CO 

emission standards apply: 

(i) 8.0 g/kW-hr for engines below 8 

kW. 

(ii) 6.6 g/kW-hr for engines at or above 

8 kW and below 19 kW. 

(iii) 5.5 g/kW-hr for engines at or 

above 19 kW and below 37 kW. 

(iv) 5.0 g/kW-hr for engines at or 

above 37 kW. 

(3) Except as described in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, the Tier 3 

standards for PM and NOX+HC 

emissions are described in Tables 1 and 

2 of this section, which follow. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16080 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF 1042.101.—TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 1 ENGINES

Power density and application Displacement 

(L/cyl) Maximum engine power Model year 

PM 

(g/kW-hr) 

NOX+HC 

(g/kW-hr) 

kW < 19 ........................................ 2009 0.40 7.5 

all ................................................... disp. < 0.9 ..................................... 19 ≤ kW < 75 ................................ 2009 0.30 7.5 

2014 0.30 4.7 

disp. < 0.9 ..................................... kW ≥ 75 ........................................ 2012 0.14 5.4 

0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2 ........................... all .................................................. 2013 0.12 5.4 

1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5 ........................... kW < 600 ...................................... 2014 0.11 5.6 

2018 0.10 5.6 

600 ≤ kW < 3700 .......................... 2014 0.11 5.6 

Commercial engines with kW/L 35 2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5 ........................... kW < 600 ...................................... 2013 0.11 5.6 

2018 0.10 5.6 

600 ≤ kW ≤ 3700 .......................... 2013 0.11 5.6 

3.5 ≤ disp. ≤ 7.0 ........................... kW < 600 ...................................... 2012 0.11 5.8 

2018 0.10 5.8 

600 ≤ kW ≤ 3700 .......................... 2012 0.11 5.8 

Commercial engines with kW/L > 

35 and all recreational engines.

disp. < 0.9 ..................................... kW ≡ 75 ........................................ 2012 0.15 5.8 

0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2 ........................... kW ≡ 75 ........................................ 2013 0.14 5.8 

1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5 ........................... kW ≡ 75 ........................................ 2014 0.12 5.8 

2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5 ........................... kW ≡ 75 ........................................ 2013 0.12 5.8 

3.5 ≤ disp. < 7.0 ........................... kW ≡ 75 ........................................ 2012 0.12 5.4 

(4) For Tier 3 engines with 

displacement below 0.9 L/cyl and 

maximum engine power above 19 kW 

and at or below 75 kW, you may certify 

to a PM emission standard of 0.20 g/kWhr and a NOX+HC emission standard of 

5.8 g/kW-hr for 2014 and later model 

years. 

TABLE 2 OF 1042.101.—TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 2 ENGINES a

Displacement 

(L/cyl) Maximum engine power Model year PM (g/kW-hr) 

NOX+HC 

(g/kW-hr) 

7.0 ≤ disp. < 15.0 kW ≤ 3700 ............................................................ 2013 0.14 6.2 

15.0 ≤ disp. < 20.0 kW ≤ 3300 ............................................................ 2014 0.34 7.0 

3300 < kW ≤ 3700 ............................................... 2014 0.27 8.7 

20.0 ≤ disp. < 25.0 kW ≤ 3700 ............................................................ 2014 0.27 9.8 

25.0 < disp. < 30.0 kW ≤ 3700 ............................................................ 2014 0.27 11.0 

a No Tier 3 standards apply for engines above 3700 kW. See § 1042.1(c) for the standards that apply for these engines. 

(5) Except as described in paragraph 

(a)(6) of this section, the Tier 4 

standards for PM, NOX, and HC 

emissions are described in the following 

table: 

TABLE 3 OF 1042.101.—TIER 4 STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 1 AND CATEGORY 2 ENGINES a

Application Maximum engine power Displacement 

(L/cyl) Model year PM (g/kW-hr) 

NOX

(g/kW-hr) 

HC 

(g/kW-hr) 

Commercial only .......... 600 ≤ kW < 1400 ................ all ......................................... 2017 0.04 1.8 0.19 

Commercial only .......... 1400 ≤ kW ≤ 2000 .............. all ......................................... 2016 0.04 1.8 0.19 

Commercial and recreational.2000 < kW ≤ 3700 .............. all ......................................... 2016 0.04 1.8 0.19 

disp. < 15.0 ......................... 2014 0.12 1.8 0.19 

Commercial and recreational.kW > 3700 ........................... 15.0 ≤ disp. ≤ 30.0 .............. 2014 0.25 1.8 0.19 

all ......................................... 2016 0.06 1.8 0.19 

a No Tier 4 standards apply for recreational engines at or below 2000 kWor for commercial engines below 600 kW. The Tier 3 standards continue to apply for these engines. 

(6) The following optional provisions 

apply for complying with the Tier 4 

standards specified in paragraph (a)(5) 

of this section: 

(i) You may certify Tier 4 engines to 

a NOX+HC emission standard of 1.8 g/ 

kW-hr instead of the NOX and HC 

standards that would otherwise apply. 

(ii) For engines below 1000 kW, you 

may delay complying with the Tier 4 

standards in the 2017 model year for up 

to nine months, but you must comply 

no later than October 1, 2017. 

(iii) For engines above 3700 kW, you 

may delay complying with the Tier 4 

standards in the 2016 model year for up 

to twelve months, but you must comply 

no later than December 31, 2016. 

(iv) For Category 2 engines with 

displacement below 15.0 L/cyl and with 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16081 

maximum engine power at or below 

3700 kW, you may alternatively comply 

with the Tier 4 PM and HC standards in 

the 2015 model year and delay 

complying with the Tier 4 NOX standard 

until the 2017 model year. In the 2015 

and 2016 model years, these engines 

must also comply with the Tier 3 

NOX+HC standard. 

(b) 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 for 

demonstrating compliance with NOX, 

NOX+HC, and PM emission standards 

for Category 1 and Category 2 engines. 

You may also use NOX or NOX+HC 

emission credits to comply with the 

alternate NOX+HC standards in 

paragraph (a)(6)(i) 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 paragraph (a) of this 

section. The FELs determine the not-toexceed standards for your engine family, 

as specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The following FEL caps apply: 

(1) FELs for Tier 3 engines may not be 

higher than the Tier 2 standards 

specified in Appendix I of this part. 

(2) FELs for Tier 4 engines may not be 

higher than the Tier 3 standards 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. 

(c) Not-to-exceed standards. Exhaust 

emissions from your propulsion or 

auxiliary engines may not exceed the 

not-to-exceed (NTE) standards, as 

described in this paragraph (c). 

(1) Use the following equation to 

determine the NTE standards: 

(i) NTE standard for each pollutant = 

STD × M 

Where: 

STD = The standard specified for that 

pollutant in this section if you certify 

without using ABT for that pollutant; or 

the FEL for that pollutant if you certify 

using ABT. 

M = The NTE multiplier for that pollutant, 

as defined in Appendix III of this part 

1042. 

(ii) Round each NTE standard to the 

same number of decimal places as the 

emission standard. 

(2) Determine the applicable NTE 

zone and subzones. The NTE zone and 

subzones for an engine family are 

defined in Appendix III of this part 

1042, according to the applicable 

certification duty cycle(s). For an engine 

family certified to multiple duty cycles, 

the broadest applicable NTE zone 

applies for that family at the time of 

certification. Whenever an engine 

family is certified to multiple duty 

cycles and a specific engine from that 

family is tested for NTE compliance inuse, determine the applicable NTE zone 

for that engine according to that 

engine’s in-use application. An engine 

family’s NTE zone may be modified as 

follows: 

(i) You may ask us to approve a 

narrower NTE zone for an engine family 

at the time of certification, based on 

information such as how that engine 

family is expected to normally operate 

in use. For example, if an engine family 

is always coupled to a pump or jet 

drive, the engine might be able to 

operate only within a narrow range of 

engine speed and power. 

(ii) You may ask us to approve a 

Limited Testing Region (LTR). An LTR 

is a region of engine operation, within 

the applicable NTE zone, where you 

have demonstrated that your engine 

family operates for no more than 5.0 

percent of its normal in-use operation, 

on a time-weighted basis. You must 

specify an LTR using boundaries based 

on engine speed and power (or torque), 

where the LTR boundaries must 

coincide with some portion of the 

boundary defining the overall NTE 

zone. Any emission data collected 

within an LTR for a time duration that 

exceeds 5.0 percent of the duration of its 

respective NTE sampling period (as 

defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section) will be excluded when 

determining compliance with the 

applicable NTE standards. Any 

emission data collected within an LTR 

for a time duration of 5.0 percent or less 

of the duration of the respective NTE 

sampling period will be included when 

determining compliance with the NTE 

standards. 

(iii) You must notify us if you design 

your engines for normal in-use 

operation outside the applicable NTE 

zone. If we learn that normal in-use 

operation for your engines includes 

other speeds and loads, we may specify 

a broader NTE zone, as long as the 

modified zone is limited to normal inuse operation for speeds greater than 70 

percent of maximum test speed and 

loads greater than 30 percent of 

maximum power at maximum test 

speed (or 30 percent of maximum test 

torque, as appropriate). 

(iv) You may exclude emission data 

based on ambient or engine parameter 

limit values as follows: 

(A) NOX catalytic aftertreatment 

minimum temperature. For an engine 

equipped with a catalytic NOX

aftertreatment system, exclude NOX

emission data that is collected when the 

exhaust temperature is less than 150 °C, 

as measured within 30 cm downstream 

of the last NOX aftertreatment device 

that has the greatest exhaust flow. You 

may request that we approve a higher 

minimum exhaust temperature limit at 

the time of certification based on the 

normal in-use operation of the NOX

exhaust aftertreatment system for the 

engine family. We will generally not 

approve a minimum exhaust 

temperature for catalytic NOX

aftertreatment greater than 250 °C. 

(B) Hydrocarbon catalytic 

aftertreatment minimum temperature. 

For an engine equipped with a catalytic 

hydrocarbon aftertreatment system, 

exclude hydrocarbon emission data that 

is collected when the exhaust 

temperature is less than 250 °C, as 

measured within 30 cm downstream of 

the last hydrocarbon aftertreatment 

device that has the greatest exhaust 

flow. 

(C) Other parameters. You may 

request our approval for other minimum 

or maximum ambient or engine 

parameter limit values at the time of 

certification. 

(3) The NTE standards apply to your 

engines whenever they operate within 

the NTE zone for an NTE sampling 

period of at least thirty seconds, during 

which only a single operator demand set 

point may be selected. Engine operation 

during a change in operator demand is 

excluded from any NTE sampling 

period. There is no maximum NTE 

sampling period. 

(4) Collect emission data for 

determining compliance with the NTE 

standards using the procedures 

described in subpart F of this part. 

(d) Fuel types. The exhaust emission 

standards in this section apply for 

engines using the fuel type on which the 

engines in the engine family are 

designed to operate. 

(1) You must meet the numerical 

emission standards for hydrocarbons in 

this section based on the following 

types of hydrocarbon emissions for 

engines powered by the following fuels: 

(i) Alcohol-fueled engines must 

comply with Tier 3 HC standards based 

on THCE emissions and with Tier 4 

standards based on NMHCE emissions. 

(ii) Natural gas-fueled engines must 

comply with HC standards based on 

NMHC emissions. 

(iii) Diesel-fueled and other engines 

must comply with Tier 3 HC standards 

based on THC emissions and with Tier 

4 standards based on NMHC emissions. 

(2) Tier 3 and later engines must 

comply with the exhaust emission 

standards when tested using test fuels 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16082 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

containing 15 ppm or less sulfur (ultra 

low-sulfur diesel fuel). 

(3) Engines designed to operate using 

residual fuel must comply with the 

standards and requirements of this part 

when operated using residual fuel in 

addition to complying with the 

requirements of this part when operated 

using diesel fuel. 

(e) Useful life. Your engines must 

meet the exhaust emission standards of 

this section over their full useful life. 

(1) The minimum useful life values 

are as follows, except as specified by 

paragraph (e)(2) or (3) of this section: 

(i) 10 years or 1,000 hours of 

operation for recreational Category 1 

engines. 

(ii) 10 years or 10,000 hours of 

operation for commercial Category 1 

engines. 

(iii) 10 years or 20,000 hours of 

operation for Category 2 engines. 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(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. 

(3) You may request in your 

application for certification that we 

approve a shorter useful life for an 

engine family. We may approve a 

shorter useful life, in hours of engine 

operation but not in years, if we 

determine that these engines will rarely 

operate longer than the shorter useful 

life. If engines identical to those in the 

engine family have already been 

produced and are in use, your 

demonstration must include 

documentation from such in-use 

engines. In other cases, your 

demonstration must include an 

engineering analysis of information 

equivalent to such in-use data, such as 

data from research engines or similar 

engine models that are already in 

production. Your demonstration must 

also include any overhaul interval that 

you recommend, any mechanical 

warranty that you offer for the engine or 

its components, and any relevant 

customer design specifications. Your 

demonstration may include any other 

relevant information. The useful life 

value may not be shorter than any of the 

following: 

(i) 1,000 hours of operation. 

(ii) Your recommended overhaul 

interval. 

(iii) Your mechanical warranty for the 

engine. 

(f) Applicability for testing. The dutycycle emission standards in this subpart 

apply to all testing performed according 

to the procedures in § 1042.505, 

including certification, production-line, 

and in-use testing. The not-to-exceed 

standards apply for all testing 

performed according to the procedures 

of subpart F of this part. 

§ 1042.107 Evaporative emission 

standards. 

(a) There are no evaporative emission 

standards for diesel-fueled engines, or 

engines using other nonvolatile or 

nonliquid fuels (for example, natural 

gas). 

(b) If an engine uses a volatile liquid 

fuel, such as methanol, the engine’s fuel 

system and the vessel in which the 

engine is installed must meet the 

evaporative emission requirements of 40 

CFR part 1045 that apply with respect 

to spark-ignition engines. Manufacturers 

subject to evaporative emission 

standards must meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 1045.105 as described in 40 

CFR part 1060 and do all the following 

things in the application for 

certification: 

(1) Describe how evaporative 

emissions are controlled. 

(2) Present test data to show that fuel 

systems and vessels meet the 

evaporative emission standards we 

specify in this section if you do not use 

design-based certification under 40 CFR 

1060.240. Show these figures before and 

after applying deterioration factors, 

where applicable. 

§ 1042.110 Recording urea use and other 

diagnostic functions. 

(a) Engines equipped with SCR 

systems must meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) The diagnostic system must 

monitor urea quality and tank levels and 

alert operators to the need to refill the 

urea tank using a malfunction-indicator 

light (MIL) and an audible alarm. You 

do not need to separately monitor urea 

quality if you include an exhaust NOX

sensor that allows you determine 

inadequate urea quality along with other 

SCR malfunctions. 

(2) The onboard computer log must 

record in nonvolatile computer memory 

all incidents of engine operation with 

inadequate urea injection or urea 

quality. 

(b) You may equip your engine with 

other diagnostic features. If you do, they 

must be designed to allow us to read 

and interpret the codes. Note that 

§§ 1042.115 and 1042.205 require that 

you provide us any information needed 

to read, record, and interpret all the 

information broadcast by an engine’s 

onboard computers and electronic 

control units. 

§ 1042.115 Other requirements. 

Engines that are required to comply 

with the emission standards of this part 

must meet the following requirements: 

(a) Crankcase emissions. Crankcase 

emissions may not be discharged 

directly into the ambient atmosphere 

from any engine throughout its useful 

life, except as follows: 

(1) Engines may discharge crankcase 

emissions to the ambient atmosphere if 

the emissions are added to the exhaust 

emissions (either physically or 

mathematically) during all emission 

testing. If you take advantage of this 

exception, you must do the following 

things: 

(i) Manufacture the engines so that all 

crankcase emissions can be routed into 

the applicable sampling systems 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065. 

(ii) Account for deterioration in 

crankcase emissions when determining 

exhaust deterioration factors. 

(2) For purposes of this paragraph (a), 

crankcase emissions that are routed to 

the exhaust upstream of exhaust 

aftertreatment during all operation are 

not considered to be discharged directly 

into the ambient atmosphere. 

(b) Torque broadcasting. 

Electronically controlled engines must 

broadcast their speed and output shaft 

torque (in newton-meters). Engines may 

alternatively broadcast a surrogate value 

for determining torque. Engines must 

broadcast engine parameters such that 

they can be read with a remote device, 

or broadcast them directly to their 

controller area networks. This 

information is necessary for testing 

engines in the field (see § 1042.515). 

(c) EPA access to broadcast 

information. If we request it, you must 

provide us any hardware or tools we 

would need to readily read, interpret, 

and record all information broadcast by 

an engine’s on-board computers and 

electronic control modules. If you 

broadcast a surrogate parameter for 

torque values, you must provide us 

what we need to convert these into 

torque units. We will not ask for 

hardware or tools if they are readily 

available commercially. 

(d) Adjustable parameters. An 

operating parameter is not considered 

adjustable if you permanently seal it or 

if it is not normally accessible using 

ordinary tools. The following provisions 

apply for adjustable parameters: 

(1) Category 1 engines that have 

adjustable parameters must meet all the 

requirements of this part for any 

adjustment in the physically adjustable 

range. We may require that you set 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16083 

adjustable parameters to any 

specification within the adjustable range 

during any testing, including 

certification testing, selective 

enforcement auditing, or in-use testing. 

(2) Category 2 engines that have 

adjustable parameters must meet all the 

requirements of this part for any 

adjustment in the approved adjustable 

range. You must specify in your 

application for certification the 

adjustable range of each adjustable 

parameter on a new engine to—

(i) Ensure that safe engine operating 

characteristics are available within that 

range, as required by section 202(a)(4) of 

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(4)), 

taking into consideration the production 

tolerances. 

(ii) Limit the physical range of 

adjustability to the maximum extent 

practicable to the range that is necessary 

for proper operation of the engine. 

(e) Prohibited controls. You may not 

design your engines with emissioncontrol devices, systems, or elements of 

design that cause or contribute to an 

unreasonable risk to public health, 

welfare, or safety while operating. For 

example, this would apply if the engine 

emits a noxious or toxic substance it 

would otherwise not emit that 

contributes to such an unreasonable 

risk. 

(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. This 

does not apply to auxiliary emission 

control devices you identify in your 

certification application if any of the 

following is true: 

(1) The conditions of concern were 

substantially included in the applicable 

duty-cycle test procedures described in 

subpart F of this part (the portion during 

which emissions are measured). See 

paragraph (f)(4) of this section for other 

conditions. 

(2) You show your design is necessary 

to prevent engine (or vessel) damage or 

accidents. 

(3) The reduced effectiveness applies 

only to starting the engine. 

(4) The auxiliary emission control 

device reduces urea flow for a selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) aftertreatment 

system and meets the requirements of 

this paragraph (f)(4). For any operation 

meeting one of the conditions of 

paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, your 

SCR system must function so that at 

least one of the conditions of paragraph 

(ii) of this paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this 

section is met at the applicable speed 

and loads. 

(i) The provisions of this paragraph 

(f)(4) apply under either of the following 

conditions: 

(A) The ambient test conditions are 

outside the range specified in 

§ 1042.501. 

(B) The operation is at a speed and/ 

or load not included as a duty-cycle test 

point, including transient operation 

between test points. 

(ii) Consistent with good engineering 

judgment, your AECD is not a defeat 

device where one of the following is 

true: 

(A) You maintain the mass flow of 

urea into the catalyst at the highest level 

possible without emitting ammonia at 

levels higher than would occur at 

operation at test points under test 

conditions. 

(B) The temperature of the exhaust is 

too low to allow urea to be converted to 

ammonia. 

§ 1042.120 Emission-related warranty 

requirements. 

(a) General requirements. You must 

warrant to the ultimate purchaser and 

each subsequent purchaser that the new 

engine, including all parts of its 

emission-control system, meets two 

conditions: 

(1) It is designed, built, and equipped 

so it conforms at the time of sale to the 

ultimate purchaser with the 

requirements of this part. 

(2) It is free from defects in materials 

and workmanship that may keep it from 

meeting these requirements. 

(b) Warranty period. Your emissionrelated warranty must be valid for at 

least as long as the minimum warranty 

periods listed in this paragraph (b) in 

hours of operation and years, whichever 

comes first. You may offer an emissionrelated warranty more generous than we 

require. The emission-related 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. The following minimum 

warranty periods apply: 

(1) For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines, your emission-related warranty 

must be valid for at least 50 percent of 

the engine’s useful life in hours of 

operation or a number of years equal to 

at least 50 percent of the useful life in 

years, whichever comes first. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) Components covered. The 

emission-related warranty covers all 

components whose failure would 

increase an engine’s emissions of any 

pollutant, including those listed in 40 

CFR part 1068, Appendix I, and those 

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 pollutant. 

(d) Limited applicability. You may 

deny warranty claims under this section 

if the operator caused the problem 

through improper maintenance or use, 

as described in 40 CFR 1068.115. 

(e) Owner’s manual. Describe in the 

owner’s manual the emission-related 

warranty provisions from this section 

that apply to the engine. 

§ 1042.125 Maintenance instructions for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines. 

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. This section 

applies only to Category 1 and Category 

2 engines. 

(a) Critical emission-related 

maintenance. Critical emission-related 

maintenance includes any adjustment, 

cleaning, repair, or replacement of 

critical emission-related components. 

This may also include additional 

emission-related maintenance that you 

determine is critical if we approve it in 

advance. You may schedule critical 

emission-related maintenance on these 

components if you meet the following 

conditions: 

(1) You demonstrate that the 

maintenance is reasonably likely to be 

done at the recommended intervals on 

in-use engines. We will accept 

scheduled maintenance as reasonably 

likely to occur if you satisfy any of the 

following conditions: 

(i) You present data showing that any 

lack of maintenance that increases 

emissions also unacceptably degrades 

the engine’s performance. 

(ii) You present survey data showing 

that at least 80 percent of engines in the 

field get the maintenance you specify at 

the recommended intervals. 

(iii) You provide the maintenance free 

of charge and clearly say so in 

maintenance instructions for the 

customer. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16084 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) You otherwise show us that the 

maintenance is reasonably likely to be 

done at the recommended intervals. 

(2) For engines below 130 kW, you 

may not schedule critical emissionrelated maintenance more frequently 

than the following minimum intervals, 

except as specified in paragraphs (a)(4), 

(b), and (c) of this section: 

(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers, 

PCV valves, and fuel injector tips 

(cleaning only), the minimum interval is 

1,500 hours. 

(ii) For the following components, 

including associated sensors and 

actuators, the minimum interval is 3,000 

hours: fuel injectors, turbochargers, 

catalytic converters, electronic control 

units, particulate traps, trap oxidizers, 

components related to particulate traps 

and trap oxidizers, EGR systems 

(including related components, but 

excluding filters and coolers), and other 

add-on components. For particulate 

traps, trap oxidizers, and components 

related to either of these, maintenance is 

limited to cleaning and repair only. 

(3) For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines at or above 130 kW, you may 

not schedule critical emission-related 

maintenance more frequently than the 

following minimum intervals, except as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4), (b), and 

(c) of this section: 

(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers, 

PCV valves, and fuel injector tips 

(cleaning only), the minimum interval is 

1,500 hours. 

(ii) For the following components, 

including associated sensors and 

actuators, the minimum interval is 4,500 

hours: fuel injectors, turbochargers, 

catalytic converters, electronic control 

units, particulate traps, trap oxidizers, 

components related to particulate traps 

and trap oxidizers, EGR systems 

(including related components, but 

excluding filters and coolers), and other 

add-on components. For particulate 

traps, trap oxidizers, and components 

related to either of these, maintenance is 

limited to cleaning and repair only. 

(4) We may approve shorter 

maintenance intervals than those listed 

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section where 

technologically necessary for Category 2 

engines. 

(5) If your engine family has an 

alternate useful life under § 1042.101(e) 

that is shorter than the period specified 

in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this 

section, you may not schedule critical 

emission-related maintenance more 

frequently than the alternate useful life, 

except as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(b) Recommended additional 

maintenance. You may recommend any 

additional amount of maintenance on 

the components listed in paragraph (a) 

of this section, as long as you state 

clearly that these maintenance steps are 

not necessary to keep the emissionrelated warranty valid. If operators do 

the maintenance specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section, but not the 

recommended additional maintenance, 

this does not allow you to disqualify 

those engines from in-use testing or 

deny a warranty claim. Do not take 

these maintenance steps during service 

accumulation on your emission-data 

engines. 

(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. 

(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. You must state in the owner’s 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 in-use 

testing or deny a warranty claim. Do not 

take these inspection or maintenance 

steps during service accumulation on 

your emission-data engines. 

(e) Maintenance that is not emissionrelated. For maintenance unrelated to 

emission controls, you may schedule 

any amount of inspection or 

maintenance. You may also take these 

inspection or maintenance steps during 

service accumulation on your emissiondata engines, as long as they are 

reasonable and technologically 

necessary. This might include adding 

engine oil, changing air, fuel, or oil 

filters, servicing engine-cooling systems, 

and adjusting idle speed, governor, 

engine bolt torque, valve lash, or 

injector lash. You may perform this 

nonemission-related maintenance on 

emission-data engines at the least 

frequent intervals that you recommend 

to the ultimate purchaser (but not 

intervals recommended for severe 

service). 

(f) Source of parts and repairs. State 

clearly on the first page of your written 

maintenance instructions that a repair 

shop or person of the owner’s choosing 

may maintain, replace, or repair 

emission-control devices and systems. 

Your instructions may not require 

components or service identified by 

brand, trade, or corporate name. Also, 

do not directly or indirectly condition 

your warranty on a requirement that the 

engine be serviced by your franchised 

dealers or any other service 

establishments with which you have a 

commercial relationship. You may 

disregard the requirements in this 

paragraph (f) if you do one of two 

things: 

(1) Provide a component or service 

without charge under the purchase 

agreement. 

(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in 

the public’s interest by convincing us 

the engine will work properly only with 

the identified component or service. 

(g) Payment for scheduled 

maintenance. Owners are responsible 

for properly maintaining their engines. 

This generally includes paying for 

scheduled maintenance. However, 

manufacturers must pay for scheduled 

maintenance during the useful life if it 

meets all the following criteria: 

(1) Each affected component was not 

in general use on similar engines before 

the applicable dates shown in paragraph 

(6) of the definition of new marine 

engine in § 1042.801. 

(2) The primary function of each 

affected component is to reduce 

emissions. 

(3) The cost of the scheduled 

maintenance is more than 2 percent of 

the price of the engine. 

(4) Failure to perform the 

maintenance would not cause clear 

problems that would significantly 

degrade the engine’s performance. 

(h) Owner’s manual. Explain the 

owner’s responsibility for proper 

maintenance in the owner’s manual. 

§ 1042.130 Installation instructions for 

vessel manufacturers. 

(a) If you sell an engine for someone 

else to install in a vessel, give the engine 

installer instructions for installing it 

consistent with the requirements of this 

part. Include all information necessary 

to ensure that an engine will be 

installed in its certified configuration. 

(b) Make sure these instructions have 

the following information: 

(1) Include the heading: ‘‘Emissionrelated installation instructions’. 

(2) State: ‘‘Failing to follow these 

instructions when installing a certified 

engine in a vessel violates federal law 

(40 CFR 1068.105(b)), subject to fines or 

other penalties as described in the Clean 

Air Act.’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16085 

(3) Describe the instructions needed 

to properly install the exhaust system 

and any other components. Include 

instructions consistent with the 

requirements of § 1042.205(u). 

(4) Describe any necessary steps for 

installing the diagnostic system 

described in § 1042.110. 

(5) Describe any limits on the range of 

applications needed to ensure that the 

engine operates consistently with your 

application for certification. For 

example, if your engines are certified 

only for constant-speed operation, tell 

vessel manufacturers not to install the 

engines in variable-speed applications 

or modify the governor. 

(6) Describe any other instructions to 

make sure the installed engine will 

operate according to design 

specifications in your application for 

certification. This may include, for 

example, instructions for installing 

aftertreatment devices when installing 

the engines. 

(7) State: ‘‘If you install the engine in 

a way that makes the engine’s emission 

control information label hard to read 

during normal engine maintenance, you 

must place a duplicate label on the 

vessel, as described in 40 CFR 

1068.105.’’. 

(8) Describe any vessel labeling 

requirements specified in § 1042.135. 

(c) You do not need installation 

instructions for engines you install in 

your own vessels. 

(d) Provide instructions in writing or 

in an equivalent format. For example, 

you may post instructions on a publicly 

available Web site for downloading or 

printing. If you do not provide the 

instructions in writing, explain in your 

application for certification how you 

will ensure that each installer is 

informed of the installation 

requirements. 

§ 1042.135 Labeling. 

(a) Assign each engine a unique 

identification number and permanently 

affix, engrave, or stamp it on the engine 

in a legible way. 

(b) At the time of manufacture, affix 

a permanent and legible label 

identifying each engine. The label must 

be—

(1) Attached in one piece so it is not 

removable without being destroyed or 

defaced. However, you may use twopiece labels for engines below 19 kW if 

there is not enough space on the engine 

to apply a one-piece label. 

(2) Secured to a part of the engine 

needed for normal operation and not 

normally requiring replacement. 

(3) Durable and readable for the 

engine’s entire life. 

(4) Written in English. 

(c) The label must—

(1) Include the heading ‘‘EMISSION 

CONTROL INFORMATION’’. 

(2) Include your full corporate name 

and trademark. You may identify 

another company and use its trademark 

instead of yours if you comply with the 

provisions of § 1042.640. 

(3) Include EPA’s standardized 

designation for the engine family (and 

subfamily, where applicable). 

(4) State the engine’s category, 

displacement (in liters or L/cyl), 

maximum engine power (in kW), and 

power density (in kW/L) as needed to 

determine the emission standards for 

the engine family. You may specify 

displacement, maximum engine power, 

and power density as ranges consistent 

with the ranges listed in § 1042.101. See 

§ 1042.140 for descriptions of how to 

specify per-cylinder displacement, 

maximum engine power, and power 

density. 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) State the date of manufacture 

[MONTH and YEAR]; however, you may 

omit this from the label if you stamp or 

engrave it on the engine. 

(7) State the FELs to which the 

engines are certified if you certified the 

engine using the ABT provisions of 

subpart H of this part. 

(8) Identify the emission-control 

system. Use terms and abbreviations 

consistent with SAE J1930 (incorporated 

by reference in § 1042.810). You may 

omit this information from the label if 

there is not enough room for it and you 

put it in the owner’s manual instead. 

(9) Identify the application(s) for 

which the engine family is certified 

(such as constant-speed auxiliary, 

variable-speed propulsion engines used 

with fixed-pitch propellers, etc.). If the 

engine is certified as a recreational 

engine, state: ‘‘INSTALLING THIS 

RECREATIONAL ENGINE IN A 

NONRECREATIONAL VESSEL 

VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT 

TO CIVIL PENALTY (40 CFR PART 

1068).’’. 

(10) For engines requiring ULSD, 

state: ‘‘ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL 

FUEL ONLY’. 

(11) Identify any additional 

requirements for fuel and lubricants that 

do not involve fuel-sulfur levels. You 

may omit this information from the 

label if there is not enough room for it 

and you put it in the owner’s manual 

instead. 

(12) State the useful life for your 

engine family. 

(13) State: ‘‘THIS ENGINE COMPLIES 

WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR 

[MODEL YEAR] MARINE DIESEL 

ENGINES.’’. 

(14) For an 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.’’. 

(d) You may add information to the 

emission control information label to 

identify other emission standards that 

the engine meets or does not meet (such 

as international standards). You may 

also add other information to ensure 

that the engine will be properly 

maintained and used. 

(e) For engines requiring ULSD, create 

a separate label with the statement: 

‘‘ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL 

ONLY’’. Permanently attach this label to 

the vessel near the fuel inlet or, if you 

do not manufacture the vessel, take one 

of the following steps to ensure that the 

vessel will be properly labeled: 

(1) Provide the label to each vessel 

manufacturer and include in the 

emission-related installation 

instructions the requirement to place 

this label near the fuel inlet. 

(2) Confirm that the vessel 

manufacturers install their own 

complying labels. 

(f) You may ask us to approve 

modified labeling requirements in this 

part 1042 if you show that it is 

necessary or appropriate. We will 

approve your request if your alternate 

label is consistent with the intent of the 

labeling requirements of this part. 

(g) If you obscure the engine label 

while installing the engine in the vessel 

such that the label will be hard to read 

during normal maintenance, you must 

place a duplicate label on the vessel. If 

others install your engine in their 

vessels in a way that obscures the 

engine label, we require them to add a 

duplicate label on the vessel (see 40 

CFR 1068.105); in that case, give them 

the number of duplicate labels they 

request and keep the following records 

for at least five years: 

(1) Written documentation of the 

request from the vessel manufacturer. 

(2) The number of duplicate labels 

you send for each family and the date 

you sent them. 

§ 1042.140 Maximum engine power, 

displacement, and power density. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16086 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

test power as defined in subpart F for 

testing engines. 

(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. 

(b) The nominal power curve of an 

engine configuration is the relationship 

between maximum available engine 

brake power and engine speed for an 

engine, using the mapping procedures 

of 40 CFR part 1065, based on the 

manufacturer’s design and production 

specifications for the engine. This 

information may also be expressed by a 

torque curve that relates maximum 

available engine torque with engine 

speed. 

(c) An engine configuration’s percylinder displacement is the intended 

swept volume of each cylinder. The 

swept volume of the engine is the 

product of the internal cross-section 

area of the cylinders, the stroke length, 

and the number of cylinders. Calculate 

the engine’s intended swept volume 

from the design specifications for the 

cylinders using enough significant 

figures to allow determination of the 

displacement to the nearest 0.02 liters. 

Determine the final value by truncating 

digits to establish the per-cylinder 

displacement to the nearest 0.1 liters. 

For example, for an engine with circular 

cylinders having an internal diameter of 

13.0 cm and a 15.5 cm stroke length, the 

rounded displacement would be: 

(13.0/2) 2×(p)×(15.5)÷ 1000 =2.0 liters. 

(d) The nominal power curve and 

intended swept volume must be within 

the range of the actual power curves and 

swept volumes of production engines 

considering normal production 

variability. If after production begins, it 

is determined that either your nominal 

power curve or your intended swept 

volume does not represent production 

engines, we may require you to amend 

your application for certification under 

§ 1042.225. 

(e) Throughout this part, references to 

a specific power value for an engine are 

based on maximum engine power. For 

example, the group of engines with 

maximum engine power above 600 kW 

may be referred to as engines above 600 

kW. 

(f) Calculate an engine family’s power 

density in kW/L by dividing the 

unrounded maximum engine power by 

the engine’s unrounded per-cylinder 

displacement, then dividing by the 

number of cylinders. Round the 

calculated value to the nearest whole 

number. 

§ 1042.145 Interim provisions. 

(a) General. The provisions in this 

section apply instead of other 

provisions in this part for Category 1 

and Category 2 engines. This section 

describes when these interim provisions 

expire. 

(b) Delayed standards. Postmanufacturer marinizers that are smallvolume engine manufacturers may delay 

compliance with the Tier 3 standards 

for engines below 600 kW as follows: 

(1) You may delay compliance with 

the Tier 3 standards for one model year, 

as long as the engines meet all the 

requirements that apply to Tier 2 

engines. 

(2) You may delay compliance with 

the NTE standards for Tier 3 standards 

for three model years beyond the one 

year delay otherwise allowed, as long as 

the engines meet all other requirements 

that apply to Tier 3 engines for the 

appropriate model year. 

Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families 

§ 1042.201 General requirements for 

obtaining a certificate of conformity. 

(a) You must send us a separate 

application for a certificate of 

conformity for each engine family. A 

certificate of conformity is valid starting 

with the indicated effective date, but it 

is not valid for any production after 

December 31 of the model year for 

which it is issued. 

(b) The application must contain all 

the information required by this part 

and must not include false or 

incomplete statements or information 

(see § 1042.255). 

(c) We may ask you to include less 

information than we specify in this 

subpart, as long as you maintain all the 

information required by § 1042.250. 

(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 § 1042.255 for provisions 

describing how we will process your 

application. 

(g) We may require you to deliver 

your test engines to a facility we 

designate for our testing (see 

§ 1042.235(c)). 

(h) For engines that become new as a 

result of substantial modifications 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. See the definition 

of ‘‘new’’ in § 1042.801. 

§ 1042.205 Application requirements. 

This section specifies the information 

that must be in your application, unless 

we ask you to include less information 

under § 1042.201(c). We may require 

you to provide additional information to 

evaluate your application. 

(a) Describe the engine family’s 

specifications and other basic 

parameters of the engine’s design and 

emission controls. List the fuel type on 

which your engines are designed to 

operate (for example, ultra low-sulfur 

diesel fuel). List each distinguishable 

engine configuration in the engine 

family. For each engine configuration, 

list the maximum engine power and the 

range of values for maximum engine 

power resulting from production 

tolerances, as described in § 1042.140. 

(b) Explain how the emission-control 

system operates. 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 all the following: 

(1) Give a general overview of the 

engine, the emission-control strategies, 

and all AECDs. 

(2) Describe each AECD’s general 

purpose and function. 

(3) Identify the parameters that each 

AECD senses (including measuring, 

estimating, calculating, or empirically 

deriving the values). Include vesselbased parameters and state whether you 

simulate them during testing with the 

applicable procedures. 

(4) Describe the purpose for sensing 

each parameter. 

(5) Identify the location of each sensor 

the AECD uses. 

(6) Identify the threshold values for 

the sensed parameters that activate the 

AECD. 

(7) Describe the parameters that the 

AECD modulates (controls) in response 

to any sensed parameters, including the 

range of modulation for each parameter, 

the relationship between the sensed 

parameters and the controlled 

parameters and how the modulation 

achieves the AECD’s stated purpose. 

Use graphs and tables, as necessary. 

(8) Describe each AECD’s specific 

calibration details. This may be in the 

form of data tables, graphical 

representations, or some other 

description. 

(9) Describe the hierarchy among the 

AECDs when multiple AECDs sense or 

modulate the same parameter. Describe 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16087 

whether the strategies interact in a 

comparative or additive manner and 

identify which AECD takes precedence 

in responding, if applicable. 

(10) Explain the extent to which the 

AECD is included in the applicable test 

procedures specified in subpart F of this 

part. 

(11) Do the following additional 

things for AECDs designed to protect 

engines or vessels: 

(i) Identify the engine and/or vessel 

design limits that make protection 

necessary and describe any damage that 

would occur without the AECD. 

(ii) Describe how each sensed 

parameter relates to the protected 

components’ design limits or those 

operating conditions that cause the need 

for protection. 

(iii) Describe the relationship between 

the design limits/parameters being 

protected and the parameters sensed or 

calculated as surrogates for those design 

limits/parameters, if applicable. 

(iv) Describe how the modulation by 

the AECD prevents engines and/or 

vessels from exceeding design limits. 

(v) Explain why it is necessary to 

estimate any parameters instead of 

measuring them directly and describe 

how the AECD calculates the estimated 

value, if applicable. 

(vi) Describe how you calibrate the 

AECD modulation to activate only 

during conditions related to the stated 

need to protect components and only as 

needed to sufficiently protect those 

components in a way that minimizes the 

emission impact. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Describe the engines you selected 

for testing and the reasons for selecting 

them. 

(e) Describe the test equipment and 

procedures that you used, including the 

duty cycle(s) and the corresponding 

engine applications. Also describe any 

special or alternate test procedures you 

used. 

(f) Describe how you operated the 

emission-data engine before testing, 

including the duty cycle and the 

number of engine operating hours used 

to stabilize emission levels. Explain 

why you selected the method of service 

accumulation. Describe any scheduled 

maintenance you did. 

(g) List the specifications of the test 

fuel to show that it falls within the 

required ranges we specify in 40 CFR 

part 1065. 

(h) Identify the engine family’s useful 

life. 

(i) Include the maintenance and 

warranty instructions you will give to 

the ultimate purchaser of each new 

engine (see §§ 1042.120 and 1042.125). 

(j) Include the emission-related 

installation instructions you will 

provide if someone else installs your 

engines in a vessel (see § 1042.130). 

(k) Describe your emission control 

information label (see § 1042.135). 

(l) Identify the emission standards 

and/or FELs to which you are certifying 

engines in the engine family. 

(m) Identify the engine family’s 

deterioration factors and describe how 

you developed them (see § 1042.245). 

Present any emission test data you used 

for this. 

(n) State that you operated your 

emission-data engines as described in 

the application (including the test 

procedures, test parameters, and test 

fuels) to show you meet the 

requirements of this part. 

(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. 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 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. 

(p) For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines, state that all the engines in the 

engine family comply with the not-toexceed emission standards we specify in 

§ 1042.101 for all normal operation and 

use when tested as specified in 

§ 1042.515. Describe any relevant 

testing, engineering analysis, or other 

information in sufficient detail to 

support your statement. 

(q) [Reserved] 

(r) Report all test results, including 

those from invalid tests, whether or not 

they were conducted according to the 

test procedures of subpart F of this part. 

If you measure CO2, report those 

emission levels. We may ask you to 

send other information to confirm that 

your tests were valid under the 

requirements of this part and 40 CFR 

part 1065. 

(s) Describe all adjustable operating 

parameters (see § 1042.115(d)), 

including production tolerances. 

Include the following in your 

description of each parameter: 

(1) The nominal or recommended 

setting. 

(2) The intended physically adjustable 

range. 

(3) The limits or stops used to 

establish adjustable ranges. 

(4) For Category 1 engines, 

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 

intended physically adjustable ranges. 

(5) For Category 2 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. 

(t) Provide the information to read, 

record, and interpret all the information 

broadcast by an engine’s onboard 

computers and electronic control units. 

State that, upon request, you will give 

us any hardware, software, or tools we 

would need to do this. If you broadcast 

a surrogate parameter for torque values, 

you must provide us what we need to 

convert these into torque units. You 

may reference any appropriate publicly 

released standards that define 

conventions for these messages and 

parameters. Format your information 

consistent with publicly released 

standards. 

(u) Confirm that your emission-related 

installation instructions specify how to 

ensure that sampling of exhaust 

emissions will be possible after engines 

are installed in vessels and placed in 

service. Show how to sample exhaust 

emissions in a way that prevents 

diluting the exhaust sample with 

ambient air. 

(v) State whether your certification is 

limited for certain engines. If this is the 

case, describe how you will prevent use 

of these engines in applications for 

which they are not certified. This 

applies for engines such as the 

following: 

(1) Constant-speed engines. 

(2) Variable-pitch. 

(3) Recreational engines. 

(w) Unconditionally certify that all 

the engines in the engine family comply 

with the requirements of this part, other 

referenced parts of the CFR, and the 

Clean Air Act. 

(x) Include estimates of U.S.-directed 

production volumes. If these estimates 

are not consistent with your actual 

production volumes from previous 

years, explain why they are different. 

(y) Include the information required 

by other subparts of this part. For 

example, include the information 

required by § 1042.725 if you participate 

in the ABT program. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16088 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(z) Include other applicable 

information, such as information 

specified in this part or 40 CFR part 

1068 related to requests for exemptions. 

(aa) Name an agent for service located 

in the United States. Service on this 

agent constitutes service on you or any 

of your officers or employees for any 

action by EPA or otherwise by the 

United States related to the 

requirements of this part. 

(bb) For imported engines, identify 

the following: 

(1) The port(s) at which you will 

import your engines. 

(2) The names and addresses of the 

agents you have authorized to import 

your engines. 

(3) The location of test facilities in the 

United States where you can test your 

engines if we select them for testing 

under a selective enforcement audit, as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart 

E. 

§ 1042.210 Preliminary approval. 

If you send us information before you 

finish the application, we will review it 

and make any appropriate 

determinations, especially for questions 

related to engine family definitions, 

auxiliary emission control devices, 

deterioration factors, useful life, testing 

for service accumulation, maintenance, 

and compliance with not-to-exceed 

standards. Decisions made under this 

section are considered to be preliminary 

approval, subject to final review and 

approval. We will generally not reverse 

a decision where we have given you 

preliminary approval, unless we find 

new information supporting a different 

decision. If you request preliminary 

approval related to the upcoming model 

year or the model year after that, we will 

make best-efforts to make the 

appropriate determinations as soon as 

practicable. We will generally not 

provide preliminary approval related to 

a future model year more than two years 

ahead of time. 

§ 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. We will disapprove your 

request if we determine that the 

amended instructions are inconsistent 

with maintenance you performed on 

emission-data engines. 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 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. 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 any time after 

you send your request. For example, 

this paragraph (b) would cover adding 

instructions to increase the frequency of 

a maintenance step for engines in 

severe-duty applications. 

(c) You do not need to 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. 

§ 1042.225 Amending applications for 

certification. 

Before we issue you a certificate of 

conformity, you may amend your 

application to include new or modified 

engine configurations, subject to the 

provisions of this section. After we have 

issued your certificate of conformity, 

you may send us an amended 

application requesting that we include 

new or modified engine configurations 

within the scope of the certificate, 

subject to the provisions of this section. 

You must amend your application if any 

changes occur with respect to any 

information included in your 

application. 

(a) You must amend your application 

before you take any of the following 

actions: 

(1) Add an engine configuration to an 

engine family. In this case, the engine 

configuration added must be consistent 

with other engine configurations in the 

engine family with respect to the criteria 

listed in § 1042.230. 

(2) Change an engine configuration 

already included in an engine family in 

a way that may affect emissions, or 

change any of the components you 

described in your application for 

certification. This includes production 

and design changes that may affect 

emissions any time during the engine’s 

lifetime. 

(3) Modify an FEL for an engine 

family as described in paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

(b) To amend your application for 

certification as specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section, send the Designated 

Compliance Officer the following 

information: 

(1) Describe in detail the addition or 

change in the engine model or 

configuration you intend to make. 

(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 with respect 

to showing compliance of the amended 

family with all applicable requirements. 

(3) If the original emission-data 

engine for the engine family is not 

appropriate to show compliance for the 

new or modified engine configuration, 

include new test data showing that the 

new or modified engine configuration 

meets the requirements of this part. 

(c) We may ask for more test data or 

engineering evaluations. You must give 

us these within 30 days after we request 

them. 

(d) For engine families already 

covered by a certificate of conformity, 

we will determine whether the existing 

certificate of conformity covers your 

newly added or modified engine. You 

may ask for a hearing if we deny your 

request (see § 1042.820). 

(e) For engine families already 

covered by a certificate of conformity, 

you may start producing the new or 

modified engine configuration any time 

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, 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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16089 

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 emission 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 or fuel-system component, as 

described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, use the appropriate FELs with 

corresponding production volumes to 

calculate your production-weighted 

average FEL for the model year, as 

described in subpart H of this part. If 

you amend your application without 

submitting new test data, you must use 

the higher FEL for the entire family to 

calculate your production-weighted 

average FEL 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 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 your 

production-weighted average FEL for 

the model year, as described in subpart 

H of this part. 

§ 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 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines 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 fuel 

(the fuels 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) Bore and stroke. 

(7) Number of cylinders (for engines 

with aftertreatment devices only). 

(8) Cylinder arrangement (for engines 

with aftertreatment devices only). 

(9) Method of control for engine 

operation other than governing (i.e., 

mechanical or electronic). 

(10) Application (commercial or 

recreational). 

(11) Numerical level of the emission 

standards that apply to the engine, 

except as allowed under paragraphs (f) 

and (g) of this section. 

(c) For Category 2 engines, group 

engines in the same engine family if 

they are the same in all the following 

aspects: 

(1) The combustion cycle (e.g., diesel 

cycle). 

(2) The type of engine cooling 

employed (air-cooled or water-cooled), 

and procedure(s) employed to maintain 

engine temperature within desired 

limits (thermostat, on-off radiator fan(s), 

radiator shutters, etc.). 

(3) The bore and stroke dimensions. 

(4) The approximate intake and 

exhaust event timing and duration 

(valve or port). 

(5) The location of the intake and 

exhaust valves (or ports). 

(6) The size of the intake and exhaust 

valves (or ports). 

(7) The overall injection, or as 

appropriate ignition, timing 

characteristics (i.e., the deviation of the 

timing curves from the optimal fuel 

economy timing curve must be similar 

in degree). 

(8) The combustion chamber 

configuration and the surface-to-volume 

ratio of the combustion chamber when 

the piston is at top dead center position, 

using nominal combustion chamber 

dimensions. 

(9) The location of the piston rings on 

the piston. 

(10) The method of air aspiration 

(turbocharged, supercharged, naturally 

aspirated, Roots blown). 

(11) The turbocharger or supercharger 

general performance characteristics 

(e.g., approximate boost pressure, 

approximate response time, 

approximate size relative to engine 

displacement). 

(12) The type of air inlet cooler (airto-air, air-to-liquid, approximate degree 

to which inlet air is cooled). 

(13) The intake manifold induction 

port size and configuration. 

(14) The type of fuel (the fuels with 

which the engine is intended or 

designed to be operated) and fuel 

system configuration. 

(15) The configuration of the fuel 

injectors and approximate injection 

pressure. 

(16) The type of fuel injection system 

controls (i.e., mechanical or electronic). 

(17) The type of smoke control 

system. 

(18) The exhaust manifold port size 

and configuration. 

(19) The type of exhaust 

aftertreatment system (oxidation 

catalyst, particulate trap), and 

characteristics of the aftertreatment 

system (catalyst loading, converter size 

vs engine size). 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) You may subdivide a group of 

engines that is identical under 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section into 

different engine families if you show the 

expected emission characteristics are 

different during the useful life. 

However, for the purpose of applying 

small volume family provisions of this 

part, we will consider the otherwise 

applicable engine family criteria of this 

section. 

(f) You may group engines that are not 

identical with respect to the things 

listed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this 

section in the same engine family, as 

follows: 

(1) In unusual circumstances, you 

may group such engines in the same 

engine family if you show that their 

emission characteristics during the 

useful life will be similar. 

(2) If you are a small-volume engine 

manufacturer, you may group any 

Category 1 engines into a single engine 

family or you may group any Category 

2 engines into a single engine family. 

This also applies if you are a postmanufacture marinizer modifying a base 

engine that has a valid certificate of 

conformity for any kind of nonroad or 

heavy-duty highway engine under this 

chapter. 

(3) The provisions of this paragraph 

(f) do not exempt any engines from 

meeting the standards and requirements 

in subpart B of this part. 

(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. 

§ 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). 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. 

(a) Test your emission-data engines 

using the procedures and equipment 

specified in subpart F of this part. 

(b) Select an emission-data engine 

from each engine family for testing. For 

Category 2 or Category 3 engines, you 

may use a development engine that is 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16090 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

equivalent in design to the engine being 

certified. 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 test 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 test engine 

to a 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. 

(2) 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. 

(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. 

(d) You may ask to use emission data 

from a previous model year instead of 

doing new tests, but only if all the 

following are true: 

(1) The engine family from the 

previous model year differs from the 

current engine family only with respect 

to model year or other characteristics 

unrelated to emissions. You may also 

ask to add a configuration subject to 

§ 1042.225. 

(2) The emission-data engine from the 

previous model year remains the 

appropriate emission-data engine under 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(3) The data show that the emissiondata engine would meet all the 

requirements that apply to the engine 

family covered by the application for 

certification. For engines originally 

tested under the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 94, you may consider those test 

procedures to be equivalent to the 

procedures we specify in subpart F of 

this part. 

(e) 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. 

(f) 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 specified 

in subpart F of this part, we may reject 

data you generated using the alternate 

procedure. 

§ 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) if all emission-data 

engines representing that family have 

test results showing deteriorated 

emission levels at or below these 

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 

above an applicable emission standard 

for any pollutant. 

(c) To compare emission levels from 

the emission-data engine with the 

applicable emission standards for 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines, 

apply deterioration factors to the 

measured emission levels for each 

pollutant. Section 1042.245 specifies 

how to test your engine to develop 

deterioration factors that represent the 

deterioration expected in emissions over 

your engines’ full useful life. Your 

deterioration factors must take into 

account any available data from in-use 

testing with similar engines. Smallvolume engine manufacturers and postmanufacture marinizers may use 

assigned deterioration factors that we 

establish. Apply deterioration factors as 

follows: 

(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 deterioration 

factor is less than zero, use zero. 

Additive deterioration factors must be 

specified to one more decimal place 

than the applicable standard. 

(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor 

for exhaust emissions. Use a 

multiplicative deterioration factor if 

good engineering judgment calls for the 

deterioration factor for a pollutant to be 

the ratio of exhaust emissions at the end 

of the useful life to exhaust emissions at 

the low-hour test point. For example, if 

you use aftertreatment technology that 

controls emissions of a pollutant 

proportionally to engine-out emissions, 

it is often appropriate to use a 

multiplicative deterioration factor. 

Adjust the official emission results for 

each tested engine at the selected test 

point by multiplying the measured 

emissions by the deterioration factor. If 

the deterioration factor is less than one, 

use one. A multiplicative deterioration 

factor may not be appropriate in cases 

where testing variability is significantly 

greater than engine-to-engine variability. 

Multiplicative deterioration factors must 

be specified to one more significant 

figure than the applicable standard. 

(3) Deterioration factor for crankcase 

emissions. If your engine vents 

crankcase emissions to the exhaust or to 

the atmosphere, you must account for 

crankcase emission deterioration, using 

good engineering judgment. You may 

use separate deterioration factors for 

crankcase emissions of each pollutant 

(either multiplicative or additive) or 

include the effects in combined 

deterioration factors that include 

exhaust and crankcase emissions 

together for each pollutant. 

(d) Collect emission data using 

measurements to one more decimal 

place than the applicable standard. 

Apply the deterioration factor to the 

official emission result, as described in 

paragraph (c) of this section, then round 

the adjusted figure 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. In the 

case of NOX+HC standards, apply the 

deterioration factor to each pollutant 

and then add the results before 

rounding. 

§ 1042.245 Deterioration factors. 

For Category 1 and Category 2 

engines, establish deterioration factors 

to determine whether your engines will 

meet emission standards for each 

pollutant throughout the useful life, as 

described in §§ 1042.101 and 1042.240. 

This section describes how to determine 

deterioration factors, either with an 

engineering analysis, with pre-existing 

test data, or with new emission 

measurements. 

(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 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16091 

standard or FEL greater than the Tier 2 

NOX+HC standard described in 

Appendix I of this part are considered 

to rely on established technology for 

gaseous emission control, 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 be 

considered to be established technology. 

We must approve your plan to establish 

a deterioration factor under this 

paragraph (a) before you submit your 

application for certification. 

(b) You may ask us to approve 

deterioration factors for an engine 

family based on emission measurements 

from similar highway or nonroad 

engines (including locomotive engines 

or other marine engines) if you have 

already given us these data for certifying 

the other engines in the same or earlier 

model years. Use good engineering 

judgment to decide whether the two 

engines are similar. We must approve 

your plan to establish a deterioration 

factor under this paragraph (b) before 

you submit your application for 

certification. We will approve your 

request if you show us that the emission 

measurements from other engines 

reasonably represent in-use 

deterioration for the engine family for 

which you have not yet determined 

deterioration factors. 

(c) If you are unable to determine 

deterioration factors for an engine 

family under paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section, first get us to approve a plan for 

determining deterioration factors based 

on service accumulation and related 

testing. Your plan must involve 

measuring emissions from an emissiondata engine at least three times with 

evenly spaced intervals of service 

accumulation such that the resulting 

measurements and calculations will 

represent the deterioration expected 

from in-use engines over the full useful 

life. You may use extrapolation to 

determine deterioration factors once you 

have established a trend of changing 

emissions with age for each pollutant. 

You may use an engine installed in a 

vessel to accumulate service hours 

instead of running the engine only in 

the laboratory. You may perform 

maintenance on emission-data engines 

as described in § 1042.125 and 40 CFR 

part 1065, subpart E. 

(d) Include the following information 

in your application for certification: 

(1) If you use test data from a different 

engine family, explain why this is 

appropriate and include all the emission 

measurements on which you base the 

deterioration factor. 

(2) If you determine your 

deterioration factors based on 

engineering analysis, explain why this 

is appropriate and include a statement 

that all data, analyses, evaluations, and 

other information you used are available 

for our review upon request. 

(3) If you do testing to determine 

deterioration factors, describe the form 

and extent of service accumulation, 

including a rationale for selecting the 

service-accumulation period and the 

method you use to accumulate hours. 

§ 1042.250 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

(a) If you produce engines under any 

provisions of this part that are related to 

production volumes, send the 

Designated Compliance Officer a report 

within 30 days after the end of the 

model year describing the total number 

of engines you produced in each engine 

family. For example, if you use special 

provisions intended for small-volume 

engine manufacturers, report your 

production volumes to show that you do 

not exceed the applicable limits. 

(b) Organize and maintain the 

following records: 

(1) A copy of all applications and any 

summary information you send us. 

(2) Any of the information we specify 

in § 1042.205 that you were not required 

to include in your application. 

(3) A detailed history of each 

emission-data engine. For each engine, 

describe all of the following: 

(i) The emission-data engine’s 

construction, including its origin and 

buildup, steps you took to ensure that 

it represents production engines, any 

components you built specially for it, 

and all the components you include in 

your application for certification. 

(ii) How you accumulated engine 

operating hours (service accumulation), 

including the dates and the number of 

hours accumulated. 

(iii) All maintenance, including 

modifications, parts changes, and other 

service, and the dates and reasons for 

the maintenance. 

(iv) All your emission tests (valid and 

invalid), including documentation on 

routine and standard tests, as specified 

in part 40 CFR part 1065, and the date 

and purpose of each test. 

(v) All tests to diagnose engine or 

emission-control performance, giving 

the date and time of each and the 

reasons for the test. 

(vi) Any other significant events. 

(4) Production figures for each engine 

family divided by assembly plant. 

(5) Keep a list of engine identification 

numbers for all the engines you produce 

under each certificate of conformity. 

(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 paragraph (a) of 

this section for eight years after we issue 

your certificate. 

(d) 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. 

(e) Send us copies of any engine 

maintenance instructions or 

explanations if we ask for them. 

§ 1042.255 EPA decisions. 

(a) If we determine your application is 

complete and shows that the engine 

family meets all the requirements of this 

part and the Clean Air Act, we will 

issue a certificate of conformity for your 

engine family for that model year. We 

may make the approval subject to 

additional conditions. 

(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. Our decision may be based on 

a review of all information available to 

us. If we deny your application, we will 

explain why in writing. 

(c) In addition, we may deny your 

application or suspend or revoke your 

certificate if you do any of the 

following: 

(1) Refuse to comply with any testing 

or reporting requirements. 

(2) Submit false or incomplete 

information (paragraph (e) of this 

section applies if this is fraudulent). 

(3) Render inaccurate any test data. 

(4) Deny us from completing 

authorized activities (see 40 CFR 

1068.20). This includes a failure to 

provide reasonable assistance. 

(5) Produce engines for importation 

into the United States at a location 

where local law prohibits us from 

carrying out authorized activities. 

(6) Fail to supply requested 

information or amend your application 

to include all engines being produced. 

(7) Take any action that otherwise 

circumvents the intent of the Clean Air 

Act or this part. 

(d) We may void your certificate if 

you do not keep the records we require 

or do not give us information as 

required under this part or the Clean Air 

Act. 

(e) We may void your certificate if we 

find that you intentionally submitted 

false or incomplete information. 

(f) If we deny your application or 

suspend, revoke, or void your 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16092 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

certificate, you may ask for a hearing 

(see § 1042.820). 

Subpart D—Testing Production-Line 

Engines 

§ 1042.301 General provisions. 

(a) If you produce engines that are 

subject to the requirements of this part, 

you must test them as described in this 

subpart, except as follows: 

(1) Small-volume engine 

manufacturers may omit testing under 

this subpart. 

(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 the 

application for certification and include 

your basis for projecting a production 

volume below 100 units. 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 D, even if we have approved an 

exemption under this paragraph (a)(2). 

(3) [Reserved] 

(b) We may suspend or revoke your 

certificate of conformity for certain 

engine families if your production-line 

engines do not meet the requirements of 

this part or you do not fulfill your 

obligations under this subpart (see 

§§ 1042.325 and 1042.340). 

(c) Other requirements apply to 

engines that you produce. Other 

regulatory provisions authorize us to 

suspend, revoke, or void your certificate 

of conformity, or order recalls for 

engines 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. 

(d) You may ask to use an alternate 

program for testing production-line 

engines. In your request, you must show 

us that the alternate program gives equal 

assurance that your products meet the 

requirements of this part. We may waive 

some or all of this subpart’s 

requirements if we approve your 

alternate program. 

(e) If you certify an 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. See 40 CFR 1068.27. 

§ 1042.305 Preparing and testing 

production-line engines. 

This section describes how to prepare 

and test production-line engines. You 

must assemble the test engine in a way 

that represents the assembly procedures 

for other engines in the engine family. 

You must ask us to approve any 

deviations from your normal assembly 

procedures for other production engines 

in the engine family. 

(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. The not-to-exceed standards 

apply for this testing, but you need not 

do additional testing to show that 

production-line engines meet the not-toexceed standards. 

(b) Modifying a test engine. Once an 

engine is selected for testing (see 

§ 1042.310), you may adjust, repair, 

prepare, or modify it or check its 

emissions only if one of the following is 

true: 

(1) You document the need for doing 

so in your procedures for assembling 

and inspecting all your production 

engines and make the action routine for 

all the engines in the engine family. 

(2) This subpart otherwise specifically 

allows your action. 

(3) We approve your action in 

advance. 

(c) Engine malfunction. If an engine 

malfunction prevents further emission 

testing, ask us to approve your decision 

to either repair the engine or delete it 

from the test sequence. 

(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 

engine to any setting within its 

approved adjustable range. 

(1) We may require you to adjust idle 

speed outside the physically adjustable 

range as needed, but only until the 

engine has stabilized emission levels 

(see paragraph (e) of this section). We 

may ask you for information needed to 

establish an alternate minimum idle 

speed. 

(2) We may specify adjustments 

within the physically adjustable range 

or the approved adjustable range by 

considering their effect on emission 

levels, as well as how likely it is 

someone will make such an adjustment 

with in-use engines. 

(e) Stabilizing emission levels. You 

may stabilize emission levels (or 

establish a Green Engine Factor for 

Category 2 engines) before you test 

production-line engines, as follows: 

(1) You may stabilize emission levels 

by operating the engine in a way that 

represents the way production engines 

will be used, using good engineering 

judgment, for no more than the greater 

of two periods: 

(i) 300 hours. 

(ii) The number of hours you operated 

your emission-data engine for certifying 

the engine family (see 40 CFR part 1065, 

subpart E, or the applicable regulations 

governing how you should prepare your 

test engine). 

(2) For Category 2 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. 

(f) Damage during shipment. If 

shipping an engine to a remote facility 

for production-line testing makes 

necessary an adjustment or repair, you 

must wait until after the initial emission 

test to do this work. We may waive this 

requirement if the test would be 

impossible or unsafe, or if it would 

permanently damage the engine. Report 

to us in your written report under 

§ 1042.345 all adjustments or repairs 

you make on test engines before each 

test. 

(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 you retest an engine, you 

may ask us to substitute results of the 

new tests for the original ones. You 

must ask us within ten days of testing. 

We will generally answer within ten 

days after we receive your information. 

§ 1042.310 Engine selection. 

(a) Determine minimum sample sizes 

as follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16093 

(1) For Category 1 engines, the 

minimum sample size is one engine or 

one percent of the projected U.S.- 

directed production volume for all your 

Category 1 engine families, whichever is 

greater. 

(2) For Category 2 engines, the 

minimum sample size is one engine or 

one percent of the projected U.S.- 

directed production volume for all your 

Category 2 engine families, whichever is 

greater. 

(b) Randomly select one engine from 

each category early in the model year 

from the engine family with the highest 

projected U.S.-directed production 

volume. For further testing to reach the 

minimum sample size, randomly select 

a proportional sample from each engine 

family, with testing distributed evenly 

over the course of the model year. 

(c) For each engine that fails to meet 

emission standards, test two engines 

from the same engine family from the 

next fifteen engines produced or within 

seven calendar days, which is later. If an 

engine fails to meet emission standards 

for any pollutant, count it as a failing 

engine under this paragraph (c). 

(d) Continue testing until one of the 

following things happens: 

(1) You test the number of engines 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of 

this section. 

(2) The engine family does not 

comply according to § 1042.315 or you 

choose to declare that the engine family 

does not comply with the requirements 

of this subpart. 

(3) You test 30 engines from the 

engine family. 

(e) You may elect to test more 

randomly chosen engines than we 

require under this section. 

§ 1042.315 Determining compliance. 

This section describes the pass-fail 

criteria for the production-line testing 

requirements. We apply these criteria on 

an engine-family basis. See § 1042.320 

for the requirements that apply to 

individual engines that fail a 

production-line test. 

(a) Calculate your test results as 

follows: 

(1) Initial and final test results. 

Calculate the test results for each 

engine. If you do several tests on an 

engine, calculate the initial test results, 

then add them together and divide by 

the number of tests 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) 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). 

§ 1042.320 What happens if one of my 

production-line engines fails to meet 

emission standards? 

(a) If you have a production-line 

engine with final deteriorated test 

results exceeding one or more emission 

standards (see § 1042.315(a)), the 

certificate of conformity is automatically 

suspended for that failing engine. You 

must take the following actions before 

your certificate of conformity can cover 

that engine: 

(1) Correct the problem and retest the 

engine to show it complies with all 

emission standards. 

(2) Include in your written report a 

description of the test results and the 

remedy for each engine (see § 1042.345). 

(b) You may request to amend the 

application for certification to raise the 

FEL of the entire engine family at this 

point (see § 1042.225). 

§ 1042.325 What happens if an engine 

family fails the production-line testing 

requirements? 

(a) We may suspend your certificate of 

conformity for an engine family if it fails 

under § 1042.315. The suspension may 

apply to all facilities producing engines 

from an engine family, even if you find 

noncompliant engines only at one 

facility. 

(b) We will tell you in writing if we 

suspend your certificate in whole or in 

part. We will not suspend a certificate 

until at least 15 days after the engine 

family fails. The suspension is effective 

when you receive our notice. 

(c) Up to 15 days after we suspend the 

certificate for an engine family, you may 

ask for a hearing (see § 1042.820). If we 

agree before a hearing occurs that we 

used erroneous information in deciding 

to suspend the certificate, we will 

reinstate the certificate. 

(d) Section 1042.335 specifies steps 

you must take to remedy the cause of 

the engine family’s production-line 

failure. All the engines you have 

produced since the end of the last test 

period are presumed noncompliant and 

should be addressed in your proposed 

remedy. We may require you to apply 

the remedy to engines produced earlier 

if we determine that the cause of the 

failure is likely to have affected the 

earlier engines. 

(e) You may request to amend the 

application for certification to raise the 

FEL of the entire engine family as 

described in § 1051.225(f). We will 

approve your request if it is clear that 

you used good engineering judgment in 

establishing the original FEL. 

§ 1042.330 Selling engines from an engine 

family with a suspended certificate of 

conformity. 

You may sell engines that you 

produce after we suspend the engine 

family’s certificate of conformity under 

§ 1042.315 only if one of the following 

occurs: 

(a) You test each engine you produce 

and show it complies with emission 

standards that apply. 

(b) We conditionally reinstate the 

certificate for the engine family. We may 

do so if you agree to recall all the 

affected engines and remedy any 

noncompliance at no expense to the 

owner if later testing shows that the 

engine family still does not comply. 

§ 1042.335 Reinstating suspended 

certificates. 

(a) Send us a written report asking us 

to reinstate your suspended certificate. 

In your report, identify the reason for 

noncompliance, propose a remedy for 

the engine family, and commit to a date 

for carrying it out. In your proposed 

remedy include any quality control 

measures you propose to keep the 

problem from happening again. 

(b) Give us data from production-line 

testing that shows the remedied engine 

family complies with all the emission 

standards that apply. 

§ 1042.340 When may EPA revoke my 

certificate under this subpart and how may 

I sell these engines again? 

(a) We may revoke your certificate for 

an engine family in the following cases: 

(1) You do not meet the reporting 

requirements. 

(2) Your engine family fails to comply 

with the requirements of this subpart 

and your proposed remedy to address a 

suspended certificate under § 1042.325 

is inadequate to solve the problem or 

requires you to change the engine’s 

design or emission-control system. 

(b) To sell engines from an engine 

family with a revoked certificate of 

conformity, you must modify the engine 

family and then show it complies with 

the requirements of this part. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16094 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(1) If we determine your proposed 

design change may not control 

emissions for the engine’s full useful 

life, we will tell you within five working 

days after receiving your report. In this 

case we will decide whether 

production-line testing will be enough 

for us to evaluate the change or whether 

you need to do more testing. 

(2) Unless we require more testing, 

you may show compliance by testing 

production-line engines as described in 

this subpart. 

(3) We will issue a new or updated 

certificate of conformity when you have 

met these requirements. 

§ 1042.345 Reporting. 

You must do all the following things 

unless we ask you to send us less 

information: 

(a) Within 30 calendar days of the end 

of each quarter in which productionline testing occurs, send us a report with 

the following information: 

(1) Describe any facility used to test 

production-line engines and state its 

location. 

(2) State the total U.S.-directed 

production volume and number of tests 

for each engine family. 

(3) Describe how you randomly 

selected engines. 

(4) Describe each test engine, 

including the engine family’s 

identification and the engine’s model 

year, build date, model number, 

identification number, and number of 

hours of operation before testing. Also 

describe how you developed and 

applied the Green Engine Factor, if 

applicable. 

(5) Identify how you accumulated 

hours of operation on the engines and 

describe the procedure and schedule 

you used. 

(6) Provide the test number; the date, 

time and duration of testing; test 

procedure; initial test results before and 

after rounding; 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. 

(7) Describe completely and justify 

any nonroutine adjustment, 

modification, repair, preparation, 

maintenance, or test for the test engine 

if you did not report it separately under 

this subpart. Include the results of any 

emission measurements, regardless of 

the procedure or type of engine. 

(8) Report on each failed engine as 

described in § 1042.320. 

(9) Identify when the model year ends 

for each engine family. 

(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. 

(c) An authorized representative of 

your company must sign the following 

statement: We submit this report under 

sections 208 and 213 of the Clean Air 

Act. Our production-line testing 

conformed completely with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 1042. We 

have not changed production processes 

or quality-control procedures for test 

engines in a way that might affect 

emission controls. All the information 

in this report is true and accurate to the 

best of my knowledge. I know of the 

penalties for violating the Clean Air Act 

and the regulations. (Authorized 

Company Representative) 

(d) Send electronic reports of 

production-line testing to the 

Designated Compliance Officer using an 

approved information format. If you 

want to use a different format, send us 

a written request with justification for a 

waiver. 

(e) We will send copies of your 

reports to anyone from the public who 

asks for them. See § 1042.815 for 

information on how we treat 

information you consider confidential. 

§ 1042.350 Recordkeeping. 

(a) Organize and maintain your 

records as described in this section. We 

may review your records at any time. 

(b) Keep records of your productionline testing for eight years after you 

complete all the testing required for an 

engine family in a model year. You may 

use any appropriate storage formats or 

media. 

(c) Keep a copy of the written reports 

described in § 1042.345. 

(d) Keep the following additional 

records: 

(1) A description of all test equipment 

for each test cell that you can use to test 

production-line engines. 

(2) The names of supervisors involved 

in each test. 

(3) The name of anyone who 

authorizes adjusting, repairing, 

preparing, or modifying a test engine 

and the names of all supervisors who 

oversee this work. 

(4) If you shipped the engine for 

testing, the date you shipped it, the 

associated storage or port facility, and 

the date the engine arrived at the testing 

facility. 

(5) Any records related to your 

production-line tests that are not in the 

written report. 

(6) A brief description of any 

significant events during testing not 

otherwise described in the written 

report or in this section. 

(7) Any information specified in 

§ 1042.345 that you do not include in 

your written reports. 

(e) If we ask, you must give us 

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 a list of engine identification 

numbers for all the engines you produce 

under each certificate of conformity. 

Give us this list within 30 days if we ask 

for it. 

(g) We may ask you to keep or send 

other information necessary to 

implement this subpart. 

Subpart E—In-use Testing 

§ 1042.401 General Provisions. 

We may perform in-use testing of any 

engine subject to the standards of this 

part. 

Subpart F—Test Procedures 

§ 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 

Category 1 and Category 2 engines meet 

the duty-cycle emission standards in 

§ 1042.101(a). Measure the emissions of 

all regulated pollutants as specified in 

40 CFR part 1065. Use the applicable 

duty cycles specified in § 1042.505. 

(b) Section 1042.515 describes the 

supplemental test procedures for 

evaluating whether engines meet the 

not-to-exceed emission standards in 

§ 1042.101(c). 

(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 § 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 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 and ensure 

that the emission control information 

label is consistent with your selection of 

the test fuel (see § 1042.135(c)(10)). For 

Category 2 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16095 

(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 an 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. 

(4) [Reserved] 

(d) You may use special or alternate 

procedures to the extent we allow them 

under 40 CFR 1065.10. 

(e) This subpart is addressed to you as 

a manufacturer, but it applies equally to 

anyone who does testing for you, and to 

us when we perform testing to 

determine if your engines meet emission 

standards. 

(f) Duty-cycle testing is limited to 

ambient temperatures of 20 to 30 °C. 

Atmospheric pressure must be between 

91.000 and 103.325 kPa, and must be 

within ±5% of the value recorded at the 

time of the last engine map. Testing may 

be performed with any ambient 

humidity level. Correct duty-cycle NOX

emissions for humidity as specified in 

40 CFR part 1065. 

§ 1042.505 Testing engines using discretemode or ramped-modal duty cycles. 

This section describes how to test 

engines under steady-state conditions. 

In some cases, we allow you to choose 

the appropriate steady-state duty cycle 

for an engine. In these cases, you must 

use the duty cycle you select in your 

application for certification for all 

testing you perform for that engine 

family. If we test your engines to 

confirm that they meet emission 

standards, we will use the duty cycles 

you select for your own testing. We may 

also perform other testing as allowed by 

the Clean Air Act. 

(a) You may perform steady-state 

testing with either discrete-mode or 

ramped-modal cycles, as follows: 

(1) For discrete-mode testing, sample 

emissions separately for each mode, 

then calculate an average emission level 

for the whole cycle using the weighting 

factors specified for each mode. 

Calculate cycle statistics for each mode 

and compare with the specified values 

in 40 CFR part 1065 to confirm that the 

test is valid. Operate the engine and 

sampling system as follows: 

(i) Engines with NOX aftertreatment. 

For engines that depend on 

aftertreatment to meet the NOX emission 

standard, operate the engine for 5–6 

minutes, then sample emissions for 1–

3 minutes in each mode. You may 

extend the sampling time to improve 

measurement accuracy of PM emissions, 

using good engineering judgment. If you 

have a longer sampling time for PM 

emissions, calculate and validate cycle 

statistics separately for the gaseous and 

PM sampling periods. 

(ii) Engines without NOX

aftertreatment. For other engines, 

operate the engine for at least 5 minutes, 

then sample emissions for at least 1 

minute in each mode. 

(2) For ramped-modal testing, start 

sampling at the beginning of the first 

mode and continue sampling until the 

end of the last mode. Calculate 

emissions and cycle statistics the same 

as for transient testing as specified in 40 

CFR part 1065, subpart G. 

(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 

emission standards in § 1042.101(a): 

(1) General cycle. Use the 4-mode 

duty cycle or the corresponding 

ramped-modal cycle described in 

paragraph (a) of Appendix II of this part 

for commercial propulsion engines with 

maximum engine power at or above 19 

kW that are used with (or intended to 

be used with) fixed-pitch propellers, 

and any other engines for which the 

other duty cycles of this section do not 

apply. 

(2) Recreational engines. Use the 5- 

mode duty cycle or the corresponding 

ramped-modal cycle described in 

paragraph (b) of Appendix II of this part 

for recreational engines with maximum 

engine power at or above 19 kW. 

(3) Variable-pitch and electrically 

coupled propellers. (i) Use the 4-mode 

duty cycle or the corresponding 

ramped-modal cycle described in 

paragraph (c) of Appendix II of this part 

for constant-speed propulsion engines 

that are used with (or intended to be 

used with) variable-pitch propellers or 

with electrically coupled propellers. 

(ii) Use the 8-mode duty cycle or the 

corresponding ramped-modal cycle 

described in 40 CFR part 1039, 

Appendix IV for variable-speed 

propulsion engines with maximum 

engine power at or above 19 kW that are 

used with (or intended to be used with) 

variable-pitch propellers or with 

electrically coupled propellers. 

(4) Auxiliary engines. (i) Use the 5- 

mode duty cycle or the corresponding 

ramped-modal cycle described in 40 

CFR part 1039, Appendix II, for 

constant-speed auxiliary engines. 

(ii) Use the 8-mode duty cycle or the 

corresponding ramped-modal cycle 

specified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section for variable-speed auxiliary 

engines with maximum engine power at 

or above 19 kW. 

(5) Engines below 19 kW. Use the 6- 

mode duty cycle or the corresponding 

ramped-modal cycle described in 40 

CFR part 1039, Appendix III for 

variable-speed engines with maximum 

engine power below 19 kW. 

(c) During idle mode, operate the 

engine with the following parameters: 

(1) Hold the speed within your 

specifications. 

(2) Set the engine to operate at its 

minimum fueling rate. 

(3) Keep engine torque under 5 

percent of maximum test torque. 

(d) For full-load operating modes, 

operate the engine at its maximum 

fueling rate. However, for constantspeed engines whose design prevents 

full-load operation for extended periods, 

you may ask for approval under 40 CFR 

1065.10(c) to replace full-load operation 

with the maximum load for which the 

engine is designed to operate for 

extended periods. 

(e) See 40 CFR part 1065 for detailed 

specifications of tolerances and 

calculations. 

§ 1042.515 Test procedures related to notto-exceed standards. 

(a) This section describes the 

procedures to determine whether your 

engines meet the not-to-exceed emission 

standards in § 1042.101(c). These 

procedures may include any normal 

engine operation and ambient 

conditions that the engines may 

experience in use. Paragraphs (c) 

through (e) of this section define the 

limits of what we will consider normal 

engine operation and ambient 

conditions. 

(b) Measure emissions with one of the 

following procedures: 

(1) Remove the selected engines for 

testing in a laboratory. You may use an 

engine dynamometer to simulate normal 

operation, as described in this section. 

Use the equipment and procedures 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to 

conduct laboratory testing. 

(2) Test the selected engines while 

they remain installed in a vessel. Use 

the equipment and procedures specified 

in 40 CFR part 1065 subpart J, to 

conduct field testing. Use fuel meeting 

the specifications of 40 CFR part 1065, 

subpart H, or a fuel typical of what you 

would expect the engine to use in 

service. 

(c) Engine testing may occur under 

the following ranges of ambient 

conditions without correcting measured 

emission levels: 

(1) Barometric pressure must be 

between 91.000 and 103.325 kPa. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16096 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Ambient air temperature must be 

between 13 and 35 °C (or between 13 °C 

and 30 °C for engines not drawing 

intake air directly from a space that 

could be heated by the engine). 

(3) Ambient water temperature must 

be between 5 and 27 °C. 

(4) Ambient humidity between 7.1 

and 10.7 grams of moisture per kilogram 

of dry air. 

(d) Engine testing may occur at any 

conditions expected during normal 

operation but that are outside the 

conditions described in paragraph (b) of 

this section, as long as measured values 

are corrected to be equivalent to the 

nearest end of the specified range, using 

good engineering judgment. Correct 

NOX emissions for humidity as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart 

G. 

(e) The sampling period may not 

begin until the engine has reached 

stable operating temperatures. For 

example, this would include only 

engine operation after starting and after 

the engine thermostat starts modulating 

the engine’s coolant temperature. The 

sampling period may not include engine 

starting. 

(f) For analyzing data to determine 

compliance with the NTE standards, 

refer to § 1042.101(c) and Appendix III 

of this part 1042 for the NTE standards 

and the NTE zones, subzones, and any 

other conditions where emission data 

may be included or excluded. 

§ 1042.520 What testing must I perform to 

establish deterioration factors? 

Sections 1042.240 and 1042.245 

describe the required methods for 

testing to establish deterioration factors 

for an engine family. 

§ 1042.525 How do I adjust emission levels 

to account for infrequently regenerating 

aftertreatment devices? 

This section describes how to adjust 

emission results from engines using 

aftertreatment technology with 

infrequent regeneration events. See 

paragraph (e) of this section for how to 

adjust ramped modal testing. See 

paragraph (f) of this section for how to 

adjust discrete-mode testing. For this 

section, ‘‘regeneration’’ means an 

intended event during which emission 

levels change while the system restores 

aftertreatment performance. For 

example, exhaust gas temperatures may 

increase temporarily to remove sulfur 

from adsorbers or to oxidize 

accumulated particulate matter in a 

trap. For this section, ‘‘infrequent’’

refers to regeneration events that are 

expected to occur on average less than 

once over the applicable transient duty 

cycle or ramped-modal cycle, or on 

average less than once per typical mode 

in a discrete-mode test. 

(a) Developing adjustment factors. 

Develop an upward adjustment factor 

and a downward adjustment factor for 

each pollutant based on measured 

emission data and observed 

regeneration frequency. Adjustment 

factors should generally apply to an 

entire engine family, but you may 

develop separate adjustment factors for 

different engine configurations within 

an engine family. If you use adjustment 

factors for certification, you must 

identify the frequency factor, F, from 

paragraph (b) of this section in your 

application for certification and use the 

adjustment factors in all testing for that 

engine family. You may use carryover or 

carry-across data to establish adjustment 

factors for an engine family, as 

described in § 1042.235(d), consistent 

with good engineering judgment. All 

adjustment factors for regeneration are 

additive. Determine adjustment factors 

separately for different test segments. 

For example, determine separate 

adjustment factors for different modes of 

a discrete-mode steady-state test. You 

may use either of the following different 

approaches for engines that use 

aftertreatment with infrequent 

regeneration events: 

(1) You may disregard this section if 

regeneration does not significantly affect 

emission levels for an engine family (or 

configuration) or if it is not practical to 

identify when regeneration occurs. If 

you do not use adjustment factors under 

this section, your engines must meet 

emission standards for all testing, 

without regard to regeneration. 

(2) If your engines use aftertreatment 

technology with extremely infrequent 

regeneration and you are unable to 

apply the provisions of this section, you 

may ask us to approve an alternate 

methodology to account for regeneration 

events. 

(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 

in terms of the fraction of tests during 

which the regeneration occurs. 

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. 

(c) Applying adjustment factors. 

Apply adjustment factors based on 

whether regeneration occurs during the 

test run. You must be able to identify 

regeneration in a way that is readily 

apparent during all testing. 

(1) If regeneration does not occur 

during a test segment, add an upward 

adjustment factor to the measured 

emission rate. Determine the upward 

adjustment factor (UAF) using the 

following equation: 

UAF = EFA¥EFL

(2) If regeneration occurs or starts to 

occur during a test segment, subtract a 

downward adjustment factor from the 

measured emission rate. Determine the 

downward adjustment factor (DAF) 

using the following equation: 

DAF = EFH¥EFA

(d) Sample calculation. If EFL is 0.10 

g/kW-hr, EFH is 0.50 g/kW-hr, and F is 

0.1 (the regeneration occurs once for 

each ten tests), then: 

EFA = (0.1)(0.5 g/kW-hr) + (1.0¥0.1)(0.1 

g/kW-hr) = 0.14 g/kW-hr. 

UAF = 0.14 g/kW-hr¥0.10 g/kW-hr = 

0.04 

g/kW-hr. 

DAF = 0.50 g/kW-hr¥0.14 g/kW-hr = 

0.36 

g/kW-hr. 

(e) Ramped modal testing. Develop a 

single set of adjustment factors for the 

entire test. If a regeneration has started 

but has not been completed when you 

reach the end of a test, use good 

engineering judgment to reduce your 

downward adjustments to be 

proportional to the emission impact that 

occurred in the test. 

(f) Discrete-mode testing. Develop 

separate adjustment factors for each test 

mode. If a regeneration has started but 

has not been completed when you reach 

the end of the sampling time for a test 

mode, extend the sampling period for 

that mode until the regeneration is 

completed. 

Subpart G—Special Compliance 

Provisions 

§ 1042.601 General compliance provisions 

for marine engines and vessels. 

Engine and vessel manufacturers, as 

well as owners, operators, and 

rebuilders of engines and vessels subject 

to the requirements of this part, and all 

other persons, must observe the 

provisions of this part, the requirements 

and prohibitions in 40 CFR part 1068, 

and the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 

apply for marine compression-ignition 

engines as specified in that part, except 

as follows: 

(a) Installing a recreational marine 

engine in a vessel that is not a 

recreational vessel is a violation of 40 

CFR 1068.101(a)(1). 

(b) In addition to the provisions listed 

for the national security exemption in 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16097 

40 CFR 1068.225(b), your engine is 

exempt without a request if you produce 

it for a piece of equipment owned or 

used by an agency of the federal 

government responsible for national 

defense, where the equipment has 

specialized electronic warfare systems, 

unique stealth performance 

requirements, and/or unique combat 

maneuverability requirements. 

(c) For replacement engines, apply the 

provisions of 40 CFR 1068.240(b)(3) as 

follows: 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, this paragraph 

applies instead of the provisions of 40 

CFR 1068.240(b)(3). The prohibitions in 

40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) do not apply to 

a new replacement engine if all of the 

following are true: 

(i) We determine that no engine 

certified to the requirements of this part 

is produced by any manufacturer with 

the appropriate physical or performance 

characteristics to repower a vessel. 

(ii) The replacement engine meets the 

most stringent standards possible, and 

at least as stringent as those of the 

original engine. For example, if at a time 

in which Tier 3 standards apply, an 

engine originally certified as a Tier 1 

engine is being replaced, the 

replacement must meet the Tier 2 

requirements if we determine that a Tier 

2 engine can be used as a replacement; 

otherwise it must meet the Tier 1 

requirements. 

(iii) The engine manufacturer must 

take possession of the original engine or 

make sure it is destroyed. 

(iv) The replacement engine must be 

clearly labeled to show that it does not 

comply with the standards and that sale 

or installation of the engine for any 

purpose other than as a replacement 

engine is a violation of federal law and 

subject to civil penalty. 

(2) The provisions of 40 CFR 

1068.240(b)(3) for replacement engines 

apply only if a new engine is needed to 

replace an engine that has experienced 

catastrophic failure. If this occurs, the 

engine manufacturer must keep records 

for eight years explaining why a 

certified engine was not available and 

make these records available upon 

request. Modifying a vessel to 

significantly increase its value within 

six months after installing replacement 

engines under this paragraph (c)(2) is a 

violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1). 

(d) Misfueling a marine engine 

labeled as requiring the use of ultra lowsulfur diesel with higher-sulfur fuel is a 

violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). It is 

also a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) 

if an engine installer or vessel 

manufacturer fails to follow the engine 

manufacturer’s installation instructions 

when installing a certified engine in a 

marine vessel. 

(e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.120 

apply when rebuilding marine engines. 

The following additional requirements 

also apply when rebuilding marine 

engines equipped with exhaust 

aftertreatment: 

(1) Follow all instructions from the 

engine manufacturer and aftertreatment 

manufacturer for checking, repairing, 

and replacing aftertreatment 

components. For example, you must 

replace the catalyst if the catalyst 

assembly is stamped with a build date 

more than ten years ago and the 

manufacturer’s instructions state that 

catalysts over ten years old must be 

replaced when the engine is rebuilt. 

(2) Measure pressure drop across the 

catalyst assembly to ensure that it is 

neither higher than nor lower than the 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

(3) For urea-based SCR systems 

equipped with exhaust sensors, verify 

that sensor outputs are within the 

manufacturer’s recommended range and 

repair or replace any malfunctioning 

components (sensors, catalysts, or other 

components). 

§ 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. 

(b) Boat-builder provisions. If you are 

not an engine manufacturer, you may 

install an engine certified for the 

appropriate model year under 40 CFR 

part 86, 89, 92, 1033, or 1039 in a 

marine vessel as long as you do not 

make any of the changes described in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section and you 

meet the requirements of paragraph (e) 

of this section. If you modify the nonmarine engine in any of the ways 

described in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section, we will consider you a 

manufacturer of a new marine engine. 

Such engine modifications prevent you 

from using the provisions of this 

section. 

(c) Liability. Engines for which you 

meet the requirements of this section are 

exempt from all the requirements and 

prohibitions of this part, except for 

those specified in this section. Engines 

exempted under this section must meet 

all the applicable requirements from 40 

CFR parts 85 and 86 or 40 CFR part 89, 

92, 1033, or 1039. This paragraph (c) 

applies to engine manufacturers, boat 

builders who use such an engine, and 

all other persons as if the engine were 

used in its originally intended 

application. The prohibited acts of 40 

CFR 1068.101(a)(1) apply to these new 

engines and vessels; however, 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. If we make a 

determination that these engines do not 

conform to the regulations during their 

useful life, we may require you to recall 

them under 40 CFR part 85, 89, 92, or 

1068. 

(d) Specific criteria and requirements. 

If you are an engine manufacturer and 

meet all the following criteria and 

requirements regarding your new 

marine engine, the engine is eligible for 

an exemption under this section: 

(1) You must produce it by marinizing 

an engine covered by a valid certificate 

of conformity from one of the following 

programs: 

(i) Heavy-duty highway engines (40 

CFR part 86). 

(ii) Land-based nonroad diesel 

engines (40 CFR part 89 or 1039). 

(iii) Locomotives (40 CFR part 92 or 

1033). To be eligible to be dressed under 

this section, the engine must be from a 

locomotive certified to standards that 

are at least as stringent as either the 

standards applicable to new marine 

engines or freshly manufactured 

locomotives in the model year that the 

engine is being dressed. 

(2) The engine must have the label 

required under 40 CFR part 86, 89, 92, 

1033, or 1039. 

(3) You must not make any changes to 

the certified engine that could 

reasonably be expected to increase its 

emissions. For example, if you make 

any of the following changes to one of 

these engines, you do not qualify for the 

engine dressing exemption: 

(i) Change any fuel system parameters 

from the certified configuration, or 

change, remove, or fail to properly 

install any other component, element of 

design, or calibration specified in the 

engine manufacturer’s application for 

certification. This includes 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16098 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

aftertreatment devices and all related 

components. 

(ii) Replacing an original 

turbocharger, except that small-volume 

engine manufacturers may replace an 

original turbocharger on a recreational 

engine with one that matches the 

performance of the original 

turbocharger. 

(iii) Modify or design the marine 

engine cooling or aftercooling system so 

that temperatures or heat rejection rates 

are outside the original engine 

manufacturer’s specified ranges. 

(4) You must show that fewer than 10 

percent of the engine family’s total sales 

in the United States are used in marine 

applications. This includes engines 

used in any application, without regard 

to which company manufactures the 

vessel or equipment. Show this as 

follows: 

(i) If you are the original manufacturer 

of the engine, base this showing on your 

sales information. 

(ii) In all other cases, you must get the 

original manufacturer of the engine to 

confirm this based on its sales 

information. 

(e) Labeling and documentation. If 

you are an engine manufacturer or boat 

builder using this exemption, you must 

do all of the following: 

(1) Make sure the original engine label 

will remain clearly visible after 

installation in the vessel. 

(2) Add a permanent supplemental 

label to the engine in a position where 

it will remain clearly visible after 

installation in the vessel. In your engine 

label, do the following: 

(i) Include the heading: ‘‘Marine 

Engine Emission Control Information’’. 

(ii) Include your full corporate name 

and trademark. 

(iii) State: ‘‘This engine was 

marinized without affecting its emission 

controls.’’. 

(iv) State the date you finished 

marinizing the engine (month and year). 

(3) Send the Designated Compliance 

Officer a signed letter by the end of each 

calendar year (or less often if we tell 

you) with all the following information: 

(i) Identify your full corporate name, 

address, and telephone number. 

(ii) List the engine models for which 

you expect to use this exemption in the 

coming year and describe your basis for 

meeting the sales restrictions of 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(iii) State: ‘‘We prepare each listed 

engine model for marine application 

without making any changes that could 

increase its certified emission levels, as 

described in 40 CFR 1042.605.’’. 

(f) Failure to comply. If your engines 

do not meet the criteria listed in 

paragraph (d) of this section, they will 

be subject to the standards, 

requirements, and prohibitions of this 

part 1042 and the certificate issued 

under 40 CFR part 86, 89, 92, 1033, or 

1039 will not be deemed to also be a 

certificate issued under this part 1042. 

Introducing these engines into U.S. 

commerce as marine engines without a 

valid exemption or certificate of 

conformity under this part violates the 

prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1). 

(g) Data submission. (1) If you are 

both the original manufacturer and 

marinizer of an exempted engine, you 

must send us emission test data on the 

appropriate marine duty cycles. You can 

include the data in your application for 

certification or in the letter described in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. 

(2) If you are the original 

manufacturer of an exempted engine 

that is marinized by a post-manufacture 

marinizer, you may be required to send 

us emission test data on the appropriate 

marine duty cycles. If such data are 

requested you will be allowed a 

reasonable amount of time to collect the 

data. 

(h) Participation in averaging, 

banking and trading. Engines adapted 

for marine use under this section may 

not generate or use emission credits 

under this part 1042. These engines may 

generate credits under the ABT 

provisions in 40 CFR part 86, 89, 92, 

1033, or 1039, as applicable. These 

engines must use emission credits under 

40 CFR part 86, 89, 92, 1033, or 1039 

as applicable if they are certified to an 

FEL that exceeds an emission standard. 

(i) Operator requirements. The 

requirements specified for vessel 

manufacturers, owners, and operators in 

this subpart (including requirements in 

40 CFR part 1068) apply to these 

engines whether they are certified under 

this part 1042 or another part as allowed 

by this section. 

§ 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. 

(a) General provisions. If you are an 

engine manufacturer, 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 part 89 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 89 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. 

(b) Boat builder provisions. If you are 

not an engine manufacturer, you may 

install an engine certified for land-based 

applications in a marine vessel as long 

as you meet all the qualifying criteria 

and requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. If 

you modify the non-marine engine, we 

will consider you a manufacturer of a 

new marine engine. Such engine 

modifications prevent you from using 

the provisions of this section. 

(c) Liability. Engines for which you 

meet the requirements of this section are 

exempt from all the requirements and 

prohibitions of this part, except for 

those specified in this section. Engines 

exempted under this section must meet 

all the applicable requirements from 40 

CFR part 89 or 1039. This paragraph (c) 

applies to engine manufacturers, boat 

builders who use such an engine, and 

all other persons as if the engine were 

used in its originally intended 

application. The prohibited acts of 40 

CFR 1068.101(a)(1) apply to these new 

engines and vessels; however, we 

consider the certificate issued under 40 

CFR part 89 or 1039 for each engine to 

also be a valid certificate of conformity 

under this part 1042 for its model year. 

If we make a determination that these 

engines do not conform to the 

regulations during their useful life, we 

may require you to recall them under 40 

CFR part 89 or 1068. 

(d) Qualifying criteria. If you are an 

engine manufacturer and meet all the 

following criteria and requirements 

regarding your new marine engine, the 

engine is eligible for an exemption 

under this section: 

(1) The marine engine must be 

identical in all material respects to a 

land-based engine covered by a valid 

certificate of conformity for the 

appropriate model year showing that it 

meets emission standards for engines of 

that power rating under 40 CFR part 89 

or 1039. 

(2) The engines may not be used as 

propulsion marine engines. 

(3) You must show that the number of 

auxiliary marine engines from the 

engine family must be smaller than the 

number of land-based engines from the 

engine family sold in the United States, 

as follows: 

(i) If you are the original manufacturer 

of the engine, base this showing on your 

sales information. 

(ii) In all other cases, you must get the 

original manufacturer of the engine to 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16099 

confirm this based on its sales 

information. 

(e) Specific requirements. If you are 

an engine manufacturer or boat builder 

using this exemption, you must do all 

of the following: 

(1) Make sure the original engine label 

will remain clearly visible after 

installation in the vessel. This label or 

a supplemental label must identify that 

the original certification is valid for 

marine auxiliary applications. 

(2) Send a signed letter to the 

Designated Officer by the end of each 

calendar year (or less often if we tell 

you) with all the following information: 

(i) Identify your full corporate name, 

address, and telephone number. 

(ii) List the engine models you expect 

to produce under this exemption in the 

coming year and describe your basis for 

meeting the sales restrictions of 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

(iii) State: ‘‘We produce each listed 

engine model for marine application 

without making any changes that could 

increase its certified emission levels, as 

described in 40 CFR 1042.610.’’. 

(3) If you are the certificate holder, 

you must describe in your application 

for certification how you plan to 

produce engines for both land-based 

and auxiliary marine applications, 

including projected sales of auxiliary 

marine engines to the extent this can be 

determined. If the projected marine 

sales are substantial, we may ask for the 

year-end report of production volumes 

to include actual auxiliary marine 

engine sales. 

(f) Failure to comply. If your engines 

do not meet the criteria listed in 

paragraph (d) of this section, they will 

be subject to the standards, 

requirements, and prohibitions of this 

part 1042 and the certificate issued 

under 40 CFR part 89 or 1039 will not 

be deemed to also be a certificate issued 

under this part 1042. Introducing these 

engines into U.S. commerce as marine 

engines without a valid exemption or 

certificate of conformity under this part 

1042 violates the prohibitions in 40 CFR 

1068.101(a)(1). 

(g) Participation in averaging, banking 

and trading. Engines using this 

exemption may not generate or use 

emission credits under this part 1042. 

These engines may generate credits 

under the ABT provisions in 40 CFR 

part 89 or 1039, as applicable. These 

engines must use emission credits under 

40 CFR part 89 or 1039 as applicable if 

they are certified to an FEL that exceeds 

an emission standard. 

(h) Operator requirements. The 

requirements specified for vessel 

manufacturers, owners, and operators in 

this subpart (including requirements in 

40 CFR part 1068) apply to these 

engines whether they are certified under 

this part 1042 or another part as allowed 

by this section. 

§ 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. 

(2) Sale of the vessel in which the 

engine is installed must be limited to 

professional racing teams, professional 

racers, or other qualified racers. Keep 

records documenting this, such as a 

letter requesting an exempted engine. 

(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 

applicable 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 will not be considered to 

be used solely for competition if they 

are ever used for any recreational or 

other noncompetitive purpose. This 

means that their use must be limited to 

competition events sanctioned by the 

U.S. Coast Guard or another public 

organization with authorizing permits 

for participating competitors. Operation 

for such engines may include only 

racing events or trials to qualify for 

racing events. Authorized attempts to 

set speed records (and the associated 

official trials) are also considered racing 

events. Any use of exempt engines in 

recreational events, such as poker runs 

and 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 or 

vessels are used solely for competition. 

This would include documentation 

regarding the number of engines and the 

ultimate purchaser of each engine. Keep 

these records for five years. 

§ 1042.630 Personal-use exemption. 

This section applies to individuals 

who manufacture vessels for personal 

use. 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. For example, you may 

install an engine that was not certified 

as a marine engine. 

(a) The vessel may not be 

manufactured from a previously 

certified vessel, nor may it be 

manufactured from a partially complete 

vessel that is equivalent to a certified 

vessel. The vessel must be 

manufactured primarily from 

unassembled components, but may 

incorporate some preassembled 

components. For example, fully 

preassembled steering assemblies may 

be used. You may also power the vessel 

with an engine that was previously used 

in a highway or land-based nonroad 

application. 

(b) The vessel may not be sold within 

five years after the date of final 

assembly. 

(c) No individual may manufacture 

more than one vessel in any ten-year 

period under this exemption. 

(d) You may not use the vessel in any 

revenue-generating service or for any 

other commercial purpose, except that 

you may use a vessel exempt under this 

section for commercial fishing that you 

personally do. 

(e) This exemption may not be used 

to circumvent the requirements of this 

part or the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. For example, this exemption would 

not cover a case in which a person sells 

an almost completely assembled vessel 

to another person, who would then 

complete the assembly. This would be 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16100 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

considered equivalent to the sale of the 

complete new vessel. This section also 

does not allow engine manufacturers to 

produce new engines that are exempt 

from emission standards and it does not 

provide an exemption from the 

prohibition against tampering with 

certified engines. 

(f) The vessel must be a vessel that is 

not classed or subject to Coast Guard 

inspections or surveys. 

§ 1042.640 Special provisions for branded 

engines. 

The following provisions apply if you 

identify the name and trademark of 

another company instead of your own 

on your emission control information 

label, as provided by § 1042.135(c)(2): 

(a) You must have a contractual 

agreement with the other company that 

obligates that company to take the 

following steps: 

(1) Meet the emission warranty 

requirements that apply under 

§ 1042.120. This may involve a separate 

agreement involving reimbursement of 

warranty-related expenses. 

(2) Report all warranty-related 

information to the certificate holder. 

(b) In your application for 

certification, identify the company 

whose trademark you will use and 

describe the arrangements you have 

made to meet your requirements under 

this section. 

(c) You remain responsible for 

meeting all the requirements of this 

chapter, including warranty and defectreporting provisions. 

§ 1042.660 Requirements for vessel 

manufacturers, owners, and operators. 

(a) The provisions of 40 CFR part 94, 

subpart K, apply to manufacturers, 

owners, and operators of marine vessels 

that contain Category 3 engines subject 

to the provisions of 40 CFR part 94, 

subpart A. 

(b) 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. 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 urea. 

Failure to comply with the requirements 

of this paragraph is a violation of 40 

CFR 1068.101(a)(2). 

Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and 

Trading for Certification 

§ 1042.701 General provisions. 

(a) You may average, bank, and trade 

(ABT) emission credits for purposes of 

certification as described in this subpart 

to show compliance with the standards 

of this part. Participation in this 

program is voluntary. 

(b) The definitions of subpart I of this 

part apply to this subpart. The following 

definitions also apply: 

(1) Actual emission credits means 

emission credits you have generated 

that we have verified by reviewing your 

final report. 

(2) Averaging set means a set of 

engines in which emission credits may 

be exchanged only with other engines in 

the same averaging set. 

(3) Broker means any entity that 

facilitates a trade of emission credits 

between a buyer and seller. 

(4) Buyer means the entity that 

receives emission credits as a result of 

a trade. 

(5) Reserved emission credits means 

emission credits you have generated 

that we have not yet verified by 

reviewing your final report. 

(6) Seller means the entity that 

provides emission credits during a 

trade. 

(7) Standard means the emission 

standard that applies under subpart B of 

this part for engines not participating in 

the ABT program of this subpart. 

(8) Trade means to exchange emission 

credits, either as a buyer or seller. 

(c) Emission credits may be 

exchanged only within an averaging set. 

Except as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, the following criteria define 

the applicable averaging sets: 

(1) Recreational engines. 

(2) Commercial Category 1 engines. 

(3) Category 2 engines. 

(d) Emission credits generated by 

recreational or commercial Category 1 

engine families may be used for 

compliance by Category 2 engine 

families. Such credits must be 

discounted by 25 percent. 

(e) You may not use emission credits 

generated under this subpart to offset 

any emissions that exceed an FEL or 

standard. This applies for all testing, 

including certification testing, in-use 

testing, selective enforcement audits, 

and other production-line testing. 

However, if emissions from an engine 

exceed an FEL or standard (for example, 

during a selective enforcement audit), 

you may use emission credits to 

recertify the engine family with a higher 

FEL that applies only to future 

production. 

(f) Engine families that use emission 

credits for one or more pollutants may 

not generate positive emission credits 

for another pollutant. 

(g) Emission credits may be used in 

the model year they are generated or in 

future model years. Emission credits 

may not be used for past model years. 

(h) You may increase or decrease an 

FEL during the model year by amending 

your application for certification under 

§ 1042.225. 

(i) You may use NOX+HC credits to 

show compliance with a NOX emission 

standard or use NOX credits to show 

compliance with a NOX+HC emission 

standard. 

§ 1042.705 Generating and calculating 

emission credits. 

The provisions of this section apply 

separately for calculating emission 

credits for NOX, NOX+HC, or PM. 

(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 calculated 

emission credits to the nearest kilogram 

(kg), using consistent units throughout 

the following equation: 

Emission credits (kg) = (Std ¥ FEL) × 

(Volume) × (Power) × (LF) × (UL) × 

(10–3) 

Where: 

Std = The emission standard, in g/kW-hr. 

FEL = The family emission limit for the 

engine family, in g/kW-hr. 

Volume = The number of engines eligible to 

participate in the averaging, banking, 

and trading program within the given 

engine family during the model year, as 

described in paragraph (c) of this section. 

Power = The average value of maximum 

engine power of all the engine 

configurations within an engine family, 

calculated on a production-weighted 

basis, in kilowatts. 

LF = Load factor. Use 0.69 for propulsion 

marine engines and 0.51 for auxiliary 

marine engines. 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. 

UL = The useful life for the given engine 

family, in hours. 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) In your application for 

certification, base your showing of 

compliance on projected production 

volumes for engines whose point of first 

retail sale is in the United States. As 

described in § 1042.730, compliance 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16101 

with the requirements of this subpart is 

determined at the end of the model year 

based on actual production volumes for 

engines whose point of first retail sale 

is in the United States. Do not include 

any of the following engines to calculate 

emission credits: 

(1) Engines exempted under subpart G 

of this part or under 40 CFR part 1068. 

(2) Exported engines. 

(3) Engines not subject to the 

requirements of this part, such as those 

excluded under § 1042.5. 

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) Any other engines, where we 

indicate elsewhere in this part 1042 that 

they are not to be included in the 

calculations of this subpart. 

§ 1042.710 Averaging emission credits. 

(a) Averaging is the exchange of 

emission credits among your engine 

families. 

(b) You may certify one or more 

engine families to an FEL above the 

emission standard, subject to the FEL 

caps and other provisions in subpart B 

of this part, if you show in your 

application for certification that your 

projected balance of all emission-credit 

transactions in that model year is greater 

than or equal to zero. 

(c) If you certify an engine family to 

an FEL that exceeds the otherwise 

applicable standard, you must obtain 

enough emission credits to offset the 

engine family’s deficit by the due date 

for the final report required in 

§ 1042.730. The emission credits used to 

address the deficit may come from your 

other engine families that generate 

emission credits in the same model 

year, from emission credits you have 

banked, or from emission credits you 

obtain through trading. 

§ 1042.715 Banking emission credits. 

(a) Banking is the retention of 

emission credits by the manufacturer 

generating the emission credits for use 

in averaging or trading in future model 

years. 

(b) In your application for 

certification, designate any emission 

credits you intend to bank. These 

emission credits will be considered 

reserved credits. During the model year 

and before the due date for the final 

report, you may redesignate these 

emission credits for averaging or 

trading. 

(c) You may use banked emission 

credits from the previous model year for 

averaging or trading before we verify 

them, but we may revoke these emission 

credits if we are unable to verify them 

after reviewing your reports or auditing 

your records. 

(d) Reserved credits become actual 

emission credits only when we verify 

them in reviewing your final report. 

§ 1042.720 Trading emission credits. 

(a) Trading is the exchange of 

emission credits between 

manufacturers. You may use traded 

emission credits for averaging, banking, 

or further trading transactions. 

(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 to any certifying manufacturer. 

(c) If a negative emission credit 

balance results from a transaction, both 

the buyer and seller are liable, except in 

cases we deem to involve fraud. See 

§ 1042.255(e) for cases involving fraud. 

We may void the certificates of all 

engine families participating in a trade 

that results in a manufacturer having a 

negative balance of emission credits. 

See § 1042.745. 

§ 1042.725 Information required for the 

application for certification. 

(a) You must declare in your 

application for certification your intent 

to use the provisions of this subpart for 

each engine family that will be certified 

using the ABT program. You must also 

declare the FELs you select for the 

engine family for each pollutant for 

which you are using the ABT program. 

Your FELs must comply with the 

specifications of subpart B of this part, 

including the FEL caps. FELs must be 

expressed to the same number of 

decimal places as the emission 

standards. 

(b) Include the following in your 

application for certification: 

(1) A statement that, to the best of 

your belief, you will not have a negative 

balance of emission credits for any 

averaging set when all emission credits 

are calculated at the end of the year. 

(2) Detailed calculations of projected 

emission credits (positive or negative) 

based on projected production volumes. 

If your engine family will generate 

positive emission credits, state 

specifically where the emission credits 

will be applied (for example, to which 

engine family they will be applied in 

averaging, whether they will be traded, 

or whether they will be reserved for 

banking). If you have projected negative 

emission credits for an engine family, 

state the source of positive emission 

credits to offset the negative emission 

credits. Describe whether the emission 

credits are actual or reserved and 

whether they will come from averaging, 

banking, trading, or a combination of 

these. Identify from which of your 

engine families or from which 

manufacturer the emission credits will 

come. 

§ 1042.730 ABT reports. 

(a) If any of your engine families are 

certified using the ABT provisions of 

this subpart, you must send an end-ofyear report within 90 days after the end 

of the model year and a final report 

within 270 days after the end of the 

model year. We may waive the 

requirement to send the end-of year 

report, as long as you send the final 

report on time. 

(b) Your end-of-year and final reports 

must include the following information 

for each engine family participating in 

the ABT program: 

(1) Engine-family designation. 

(2) The emission standards that would 

otherwise apply to the engine family. 

(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you 

changed an FEL during the model year, 

identify each FEL you used and 

calculate the positive or negative 

emission credits under each FEL. Also, 

describe how the FEL can be identified 

for each engine you produced. For 

example, you might keep a list of engine 

identification numbers that correspond 

with certain FEL values. 

(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 

§ 1042.705(c). If you changed an FEL 

during the model year, identify the 

actual production volume associated 

with each FEL. 

(5) Maximum engine power for each 

engine configuration, and the 

production-weighted average engine 

power for the engine family. 

(6) Useful life. 

(7) Calculated positive or negative 

emission credits for the whole engine 

family. Identify any emission credits 

that you traded, as described in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(c) Your end-of-year and final reports 

must include the following additional 

information: 

(1) Show that your net balance of 

emission credits from all your 

participating engine families in each 

averaging set in the applicable model 

year is not negative. 

(2) State whether you will reserve any 

emission credits for banking. 

(3) State that the report’s contents are 

accurate. 

(d) If you trade emission credits, you 

must send us a report within 90 days 

after the transaction, as follows: 

(1) Sellers must include the following 

information in their report: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16102 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(i) The corporate names of the buyer 

and any brokers. 

(ii) A copy of any contracts related to 

the trade. 

(iii) The engine families that 

generated emission credits for the trade, 

including the number of emission 

credits from each family. 

(2) Buyers must include the following 

information in their report: 

(i) The corporate names of the seller 

and any brokers. 

(ii) A copy of any contracts related to 

the trade. 

(iii) How you intend to use the 

emission credits, including the number 

of emission credits you intend to apply 

to each engine family (if known). 

(e) Send your reports electronically to 

the Designated Compliance Officer 

using an approved information format. 

If you want to use a different format, 

send us a written request with 

justification for a waiver. 

(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 decrease 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 increase your 

balance of emission credits, you must 

correct the errors and recalculate the 

balance of emission credits. 

§ 1042.735 Recordkeeping. 

(a) You must organize and maintain 

your records as described in this 

section. We may review your records at 

any time. 

(b) Keep the records required by this 

section for eight years after the due date 

for the end-of-year report. You may not 

use emission credits on 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. 

(c) Keep a copy of the reports we 

require in §§ 1042.725 and 1042.730. 

(d) Keep the following additional 

records for each engine you produce 

that generates or uses emission credits 

under the ABT program: 

(1) Engine family designation. 

(2) Engine identification number. 

(3) FEL and useful life. 

(4) Maximum engine power. 

(5) Build date and assembly plant. 

(6) Purchaser and destination. 

(e) We may require you to keep 

additional records or to send us relevant 

information not required by this section. 

§ 1042.745 Noncompliance. 

(a) For each engine family 

participating in the ABT program, the 

certificate of conformity is conditional 

upon full compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart during and 

after the model year. You are 

responsible to establish to our 

satisfaction that you fully comply with 

applicable requirements. We may void 

the certificate of conformity for an 

engine family if you fail to comply with 

any provisions of this subpart. 

(b) You may certify your engine 

family to an FEL above an emission 

standard based on a projection that you 

will have enough emission credits to 

offset the deficit for the engine family. 

However, we may void the certificate of 

conformity if you cannot show in your 

final report that you have enough actual 

emission credits to offset a deficit for 

any pollutant in an engine family. 

(c) We may void the certificate of 

conformity for an engine family if you 

fail to keep records, send reports, or give 

us information we request. 

(d) You may ask for a hearing if we 

void your certificate under this section 

(see § 1042.820). 

Subpart I—Definitions and Other 

Reference Information 

§ 1042.801 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part. The definitions apply to all 

subparts unless we note otherwise. All 

undefined terms have the meaning the 

Clean Air Act gives to them. The 

definitions follow: 

Act means the Clean Air Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Adjustable parameter means any 

device, system, or element of design that 

someone can adjust (including those 

which are difficult to access) and that, 

if adjusted, may affect emissions or 

engine performance during emission 

testing or normal in-use operation. This 

includes, but is not limited to, 

parameters related to injection timing 

and fueling rate. You may ask us to 

exclude a parameter that is difficult to 

access if it cannot be adjusted to affect 

emissions without significantly 

degrading engine performance, or if you 

otherwise show us that it will not be 

adjusted in a way that affects emissions 

during in-use operation. 

Aftertreatment means relating to a 

catalytic converter, particulate filter, or 

any other system, component, or 

technology mounted downstream of the 

exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose 

design function is to decrease emissions 

in the engine exhaust before it is 

exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) and 

turbochargers are not aftertreatment. 

Amphibious vehicle means a vehicle 

with wheels or tracks that is designed 

primarily for operation on land and 

secondarily for operation in water. 

Annex VI Technical Code means the 

‘‘Technical Code on Control of Emission 

of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel 

Engines’’, adopted by the International 

Maritime Organization (incorporated by 

reference in § 1042.810). 

Applicable emission standard or 

applicable standard means an emission 

standard to which an engine is subject; 

or, where an engine has been or is being 

certified to another standard or FEL, 

applicable emission standards means 

the FEL and other standards to which 

the engine has been or is being certified. 

This definition does not apply to 

subpart H of this part. 

Auxiliary emission control device 

means any element of design that senses 

temperature, motive speed, engine RPM, 

transmission gear, or any other 

parameter for the purpose of activating, 

modulating, delaying, or deactivating 

the operation of any part of the 

emission-control system. 

Base engine means a land-based 

engine to be marinized, as configured 

prior to marinization. 

Brake power means the usable power 

output of the engine, not including 

power required to fuel, lubricate, or heat 

the engine, circulate coolant to the 

engine, or to operate aftertreatment 

devices. 

Calibration means the set of 

specifications and tolerances specific to 

a particular design, version, or 

application of a component or assembly 

capable of functionally describing its 

operation over its working range. 

Category 1 means relating to a marine 

engine with specific engine 

displacement less than 7.0 liters per 

cylinder. 

Category 2 means relating to a marine 

engine with a specific engine 

displacement greater than or equal to 

7.0 liters per cylinder but less than 30.0 

liters per cylinder. 

Category 3 means relating to a marine 

engine with a specific engine 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16103 

displacement greater than or equal to 

30.0 liters per cylinder. 

Certification means relating to the 

process of obtaining a certificate of 

conformity for an engine family that 

complies with the emission standards 

and requirements in this part. 

Certified emission level means the 

highest deteriorated emission level in an 

engine family for a given pollutant from 

either transient or steady-state testing. 

Clean Air Act means the Clean Air 

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Commercial means relating to an 

engine or vessel that is not a 

recreational marine engine or a 

recreational vessel. 

Compression-ignition means relating 

to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine. 

Constant-speed engine means an 

engine whose certification is limited to 

constant-speed operation. Engines 

whose constant-speed governor function 

is removed or disabled are no longer 

constant-speed engines. 

Constant-speed operation has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Crankcase emissions means airborne 

substances emitted to the atmosphere 

from any part of the engine crankcase’s 

ventilation or lubrication systems. The 

crankcase is the housing for the 

crankshaft and other related internal 

parts. 

Critical emission-related component 

means any of the following components: 

(1) Electronic control units, 

aftertreatment devices, fuel-metering 

components, EGR-system components, 

crankcase-ventilation valves, all 

components related to charge-air 

compression and cooling, and all 

sensors and actuators associated with 

any of these components. 

(2) Any other component whose 

primary purpose is to reduce emissions. 

Designated Compliance Officer means 

the Manager, Heavy-Duty and Nonroad 

Engine Group (6403–J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

Designated Enforcement Officer 

means the Director, Air Enforcement 

Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Deteriorated emission level means the 

emission level that results from 

applying the appropriate deterioration 

factor to the official emission result of 

the emission-data engine. 

Deterioration factor means the 

relationship between emissions at the 

end of useful life and emissions at the 

low-hour test point, 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. 

Diesel fuel has the meaning given in 

40 CFR 80.2. This generally includes 

No. 1 and No. 2 petroleum diesel fuels 

and biodiesel fuels. 

Discrete-mode means relating to the 

discrete-mode type of steady-state test 

described in § 1042.505. 

Dresser means any entity that 

modifies a land-based engine for use in 

a vessel, in compliance with the 

provisions of § 1042.605. This means 

that dressers may not modify the engine 

in a way that would affect emissions. 

Emission-control system means any 

device, system, or element of design that 

controls or reduces the emissions of 

regulated pollutants from an engine. 

Emission-data engine means an 

engine that is tested for certification. 

This includes engines tested to establish 

deterioration factors. 

Emission-related maintenance means 

maintenance that substantially affects 

emissions or is likely to substantially 

affect emission deterioration. 

Engine has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1068.30. This includes complete 

and partially complete engines. 

Engine configuration means a unique 

combination of engine hardware and 

calibration within an engine family. 

Engines within a single engine 

configuration differ only with respect to 

normal production variability. 

Engine family has the meaning given 

in § 1042.230. 

Engine manufacturer means a 

manufacturer of an engine. See the 

definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ in this 

section. 

Engineering analysis means a 

summary of scientific and/or 

engineering principles and facts that 

support a conclusion made by a 

manufacturer, with respect to 

compliance with the provisions of this 

part. 

Excluded means relating to an engine 

that either: 

(1) Has been determined not to be a 

nonroad engine, as specified in 40 CFR 

1068.30; or 

(2) Is a nonroad engine that, according 

to § 1042.5, is not subject to this part 

1042. 

Exempted has the meaning given in 

40 CFR 1068.30. 

Exhaust-gas recirculation means a 

technology that reduces emissions by 

routing exhaust gases that had been 

exhausted from the combustion 

chamber(s) back into the engine to be 

mixed with incoming air before or 

during combustion. The use of valve 

timing to increase the amount of 

residual exhaust gas in the combustion 

chamber(s) that is mixed with incoming 

air before or during combustion is not 

considered exhaust-gas recirculation for 

the purposes of this part. 

Family emission limit (FEL) means an 

emission level declared by the 

manufacturer to serve in place of an 

otherwise applicable emission standard 

under the ABT program in subpart H of 

this part. The family emission limit 

must be expressed to the same number 

of decimal places as the emission 

standard it replaces. The family 

emission limit serves as the emission 

standard for the engine family with 

respect to all required testing. 

Foreign vessel means a vessel of 

foreign registry or a vessel operated 

under the authority of a country other 

than the United States. 

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. 

Fuel type means a general category of 

fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, 

residual fuel, or natural gas. There can 

be multiple grades within a single fuel 

type, such as high-sulfur or low-sulfur 

diesel fuel. 

Good engineering judgment has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See 

40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative 

process we use to evaluate good 

engineering judgment. 

Green Engine Factor means a factor 

that is applied to emission 

measurements from a Category 2 engine 

that has had little or no service 

accumulation. The Green Engine Factor 

adjusts emission measurements to be 

equivalent to emission measurements 

from an engine that has had 

approximately 300 hours of use. 

High-sulfur diesel fuel means one of 

the following: 

(1) For in-use fuels, high-sulfur diesel 

fuel means a diesel fuel with a 

maximum sulfur concentration greater 

than 500 parts per million. 

(2) For testing, high-sulfur diesel fuel 

has the meaning given in 40 CFR part 

1065. 

Hydrocarbon (HC) means the 

hydrocarbon group on which the 

emission standards are based for each 

fuel type, as described in § 1042.101(d). 

Identification number means a unique 

specification (for example, a model 

number/serial number combination) 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16104 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

that allows someone to distinguish a 

particular engine from other similar 

engines. 

Low-hour means relating to an engine 

that has stabilized emissions and 

represents the undeteriorated emission 

level. This would generally involve less 

than 300 hours of operation. 

Low-sulfur diesel fuel means one of 

the following: 

(1) For in-use fuels, low-sulfur diesel 

fuel means a diesel fuel market as lowsulfur diesel fuel having a maximum 

sulfur concentration of 500 parts per 

million. 

(2) For testing, low-sulfur diesel fuel 

has the meaning given in 40 CFR part 

1065. 

Manufacture means the physical and 

engineering process of designing, 

constructing, and assembling an engine 

or a vessel. 

Manufacturer has the meaning given 

in section 216(1) of the Clean Air Act. 

In general, this term includes any 

person who manufactures an engine or 

vessel for sale in the United States or 

otherwise introduces a new marine 

engine into U.S. commerce. This 

includes importers who import engines 

or vessels for resale. It also includes 

post-manufacture marinizers, but not 

dealers. All manufacturing entities 

under the control of the same person are 

considered to be a single manufacturer. 

Marine engine means a nonroad 

engine that is installed or intended to be 

installed on a marine vessel. This 

includes a portable auxiliary marine 

engine only if its fueling, cooling, or 

exhaust system is an integral part of the 

vessel. A fueling system is considered 

integral to the vessel only if one or more 

essential elements are permanently 

affixed to the vessel. There are two 

kinds of marine engines: 

(1) Propulsion marine engine means a 

marine engine that moves a vessel 

through the water or directs the vessel’s 

movement. 

(2) Auxiliary marine engine means a 

marine engine not used for propulsion. 

Marine vessel has the meaning given 

in 1 U.S.C. 3, except that it does not 

include amphibious vehicles. The 

definition in 1 U.S.C. 3 very broadly 

includes every craft capable of being 

used as a means of transportation on 

water. 

Maximum engine power has the 

meaning given in § 1042.140. 

Maximum test power means: 

(1) For Category 1 engines, the power 

output observed at the maximum test 

speed with the maximum fueling rate 

possible. 

(2) For Category 2 engines, 90 percent 

of the power output observed at the 

maximum test speed with the maximum 

fueling rate possible. 

Maximum test speed has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Maximum test torque has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Model year means one of the 

following things: 

(1) For freshly manufactured 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. 

(2) For an engine that is converted to 

a marine engine after originally being 

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 converted (see 

definition of ‘‘new marine engine,’’

paragraph (2)). 

(3) For a marine engine excluded 

under § 1042.5 that is later converted to 

operate in an application that is not 

excluded, model year means the 

calendar year in which the engine was 

converted (see definition of ‘‘new 

marine engine,’’ paragraph (3)). 

(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 

importation occurs. 

(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 as a result of 

substantial modifications, model year 

means the calendar year in which the 

modifications physically begin. 

Motor vehicle has the meaning given 

in 40 CFR 85.1703(a). 

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 intended to be installed 

in a vessel that was originally 

manufactured as a motor-vehicle engine, 

a nonroad engine that is not a marine 

engine, or a stationary engine. In this 

case, the engine is no longer a motorvehicle, nonmarine, or stationary engine 

and becomes a ‘‘new marine engine’’. 

The engine is no longer new when it is 

placed into marine service. 

(3) A marine engine that has been 

previously placed into service in an 

application we exclude under § 1042.5, 

where that engine is installed in a vessel 

that is covered by this part 1042. The 

engine is no longer new when it is 

placed into marine service covered by 

this part 1042. For example, this would 

apply to a marine diesel engine that is 

no longer used in a foreign vessel. 

(4) An engine not covered by 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of this 

definition that is intended to be 

installed in a new vessel. 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. This generally includes 

installation of used engines in new 

vessels. 

(5) 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 marine 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), becomes new 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 marine engine that 

is not covered by a certificate of 

conformity issued under this part at the 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16105 

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 3 ..................................... All ............................................................. disp. ≥ 5.0 ................................................ 2004 

New vessel means any of the 

following: 

(1) A vessel for which the ultimate 

purchaser has never received the 

equitable or legal title. The vessel is no 

longer new when the ultimate purchaser 

receives this title or it is placed into 

service, whichever comes first. 

(2) For vessels with no Category 3 

engines, a vessel that has been modified 

such that the value of the modifications 

exceeds 50 percent of the value of the 

modified vessel. The value of the 

modification is the difference in the 

assessed value of the vessel before the 

modification and the assessed value of 

the vessel after the modification. The 

vessel is no longer new when it is 

placed into service. Use the following 

equation to determine if the fractional 

value of the modification exceeds 50 

percent: 

Percent of value = [(Value after 

modification)¥(Value before 

modification)÷100% (Value after 

modification) 

(3) For vessels with Category 3 

engines, a vessel that has undergone a 

modification that substantially alters the 

dimensions or carrying capacity of the 

vessel, changes the type of vessel, or 

substantially prolongs the vessel’s life. 

(4) An imported vessel that has 

already been placed into service, where 

it has an engine not covered by a 

certificate of conformity issued under 

this part at the time of importation that 

was manufactured after the 

requirements of this part start to apply 

(see § 1042.1). 

Noncompliant engine means an 

engine that was originally covered by a 

certificate of conformity but is not in the 

certified configuration or otherwise does 

not comply with the conditions of the 

certificate. 

Nonconforming engine means an 

engine not covered by a certificate of 

conformity that would otherwise be 

subject to emission standards. 

Nonmethane hydrocarbon has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

This generally means the difference 

between the emitted mass of total 

hydrocarbons and the emitted mass of 

methane. 

Nonroad means relating to nonroad 

engines, or vessels, or equipment that 

include nonroad engines. 

Nonroad engine has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1068.30. In general, this 

means all internal-combustion engines 

except motor vehicle engines, stationary 

engines, engines used solely for 

competition, or engines used in aircraft. 

Official emission result means the 

measured emission rate for an emissiondata engine on a given duty cycle before 

the application of any deterioration 

factor, but after the applicability of 

regeneration adjustment factors. 

Operator demand has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Owners manual means a document or 

collection of documents prepared by the 

engine manufacturer for the owner or 

operator to describe appropriate engine 

maintenance, applicable warranties, and 

any other information related to 

operating or keeping the engine. The 

owners manual is typically provided to 

the ultimate purchaser at the time of 

sale. The owners manual may be in 

paper or electronic format. 

Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning 

given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Particulate trap means a filtering 

device that is designed to physically 

trap particulate matter above a certain 

size. 

Passenger has the meaning given by 

46 U.S.C. 2101 (21) and (21a). In the 

context of commercial vessels, this 

generally means that a passenger is a 

person that pays to be on the vessel. 

Placed into service means put into 

initial use for its intended purpose. 

Point of first retail sale means the 

location at which the initial retail sale 

occurs. This generally means a vessel 

dealership or manufacturing facility, 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. 

Post-manufacture marinizer means an 

entity that produces a marine engine by 

modifying a non-marine engine, 

whether certified or uncertified, 

complete or partially complete, where 

the entity is not controlled by the 

manufacturer of the base engine or by an 

entity that also controls the 

manufacturer of the base engine. In 

addition, vessel manufacturers that 

substantially modify marine engines are 

post-manufacture marinizers. For the 

purpose of this definition, 

‘‘substantially modify’’ means changing 

an engine in a way that could change 

engine emission characteristics. 

Power density has the meaning given 

in § 1042.140. 

Ramped-modal means relating to the 

ramped-modal type of steady-state test 

described in § 1042.505. 

Rated speed means the maximum 

full-load governed speed for governed 

engines and the speed of maximum 

power for ungoverned engines. 

Recreational marine engine means a 

Category 1 propulsion marine engine 

that is intended by the manufacturer to 

be installed on a recreational vessel. 

Recreational vessel has the meaning 

given in 46 U.S.C. 2101 (25), but 

excludes ‘‘passenger vessels’’ and 

‘‘small passenger vessels’’ as defined by 

46 U.S.C. 2101 (22) and (35) and 

excludes vessels used solely for 

competition. For this part, ‘‘recreational 

vessel’’ generally means a vessel that is 

intended by the vessel manufacturer to 

be operated primarily for pleasure or 

leased, rented or chartered to another 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16106 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

for the latter’s pleasure, excluding the 

following vessels: 

(1) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons 

that carry more than 6 passengers (as 

defined in this section). 

(2) Vessels of 100 gross tons or more 

that carry one or more passengers (as 

defined in this section). 

(3) Vessels used solely for 

competition. 

Residual fuel has the meaning given 

in 40 CFR 80.2. 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. 

Revoke has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1068.30. In general this means to 

terminate the certificate or an 

exemption for an engine family. 

Round has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1065.1001. 

Scheduled maintenance means 

adjusting, repairing, removing, 

disassembling, cleaning, or replacing 

components or systems periodically to 

keep a part or system from failing, 

malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely. 

It also may mean actions you expect are 

necessary to correct an overt indication 

of failure or malfunction for which 

periodic maintenance is not 

appropriate. 

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. 

Small-volume engine manufacturer 

means a manufacturer 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. 

Spark-ignition means relating to a 

gasoline-fueled engine or any other type 

of engine with a spark plug (or other 

sparking device) and with operating 

characteristics significantly similar to 

the theoretical Otto combustion cycle. 

Spark-ignition engines usually use a 

throttle to regulate intake air flow to 

control power during normal operation. 

Steady-state has the meaning given in 

40 CFR 1065.1001. 

Sulfur-sensitive technology means an 

emission-control technology that 

experiences a significant drop in 

emission-control performance or 

emission-system durability when an 

engine is operated on low-sulfur fuel 

(i.e., fuel with a sulfur concentration of 

300 to 500 ppm) as compared to when 

it is operated on ultra low-sulfur fuel 

(i.e., fuel with a sulfur concentration 

less than 15 ppm). Exhaust-gas 

recirculation is not a sulfur-sensitive 

technology. 

Suspend has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1068.30. In general this means to 

temporarily discontinue the certificate 

or an exemption for an engine family. 

Test engine means an engine in a test 

sample. 

Test sample means the collection of 

engines selected from the population of 

an engine family for emission testing. 

This may include testing for 

certification, production-line testing, or 

in-use testing. 

Tier 1 means relating to the Tier 1 

emission standards, as shown in 

Appendix I. 

Tier 2 means relating to the Tier 2 

emission standards, as shown in 

Appendix I. 

Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1042.101. 

Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4 

emission standards, as shown in 

§ 1042.101. 

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 ratio of the equivalent 

hydrocarbon is 1.85:1. 

Ultimate purchaser means, with 

respect to any new vessel or new marine 

engine, the first person who in good 

faith purchases such new vessel or new 

marine engine for purposes other than 

resale. 

Ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel means one 

of the following: 

(1) For in-use fuels, ultra low-sulfur 

diesel fuel means a diesel fuel marketed 

as ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel having a 

maximum sulfur concentration of 15 

parts per million. 

(2) For testing, ultra low-sulfur diesel 

fuel has the meaning given in 40 CFR 

part 1065. 

United States has the meaning given 

in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

Upcoming model year means for an 

engine family the model year after the 

one currently in production. 

U.S.-directed production volume 

means the number of engine units, 

subject to the requirements of this part, 

produced by a manufacturer for which 

the manufacturer has a reasonable 

assurance that sale was or will be made 

to ultimate purchasers in the United 

States. 

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 new engine is required 

to comply with all applicable emission 

standards. See § 1042.101(e). 

Variable-speed engine means an 

engine that is not a constant-speed 

engine. 

Vessel means a marine vessel. 

Vessel operator means any individual 

that physically operates or maintains a 

vessel or exercises managerial control 

over the operation of the vessel. 

Vessel owner means the individual or 

company that holds legal title to a 

vessel. 

Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR 

1068.30. In general this means to 

invalidate a certificate or an exemption 

both retroactively and prospectively. 

Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel 

other than diesel or biodiesel that is a 

liquid at atmospheric pressure and has 

a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0 

pounds per square inch. 

We (us, our) means the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and any authorized representatives. 

§ 1042.805 Symbols, acronyms, and 

abbreviations. 

The following symbols, acronyms, 

and abbreviations apply to this part: 

ABT ........................................................................................................................... Averaging, banking, and trading. 

AECD ........................................................................................................................ auxiliary-emission control device. 

CFR ........................................................................................................................... Code of Federal Regulations. 

CO ............................................................................................................................. carbon monoxide. 

CO2 ........................................................................................................................... carbon dioxide. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16107 

Cyl ............................................................................................................................. cylinder. 

disp. .......................................................................................................................... displacement. 

EPA ........................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency. 

EGR .......................................................................................................................... exhaust gas recirculation. 

EPA ........................................................................................................................... Environmental Protection Agency. 

FEL ........................................................................................................................... Family Emission Limit. 

G ............................................................................................................................... grams. 

HC ............................................................................................................................. hydrocarbon. 

Hr .............................................................................................................................. hours. 

kPa ............................................................................................................................ kilopascals. 

kW ............................................................................................................................. kilowatts. 

L ................................................................................................................................ liters. 

LTR ........................................................................................................................... Limited Testing Region. 

NARA ........................................................................................................................ National Archives and Records Administration. 

NMHC ....................................................................................................................... nonmethane hydrocarbons. 

NOX ........................................................................................................................... oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2). 

NTE ........................................................................................................................... not-to-exceed. 

PM ............................................................................................................................. particulate matter. 

RPM .......................................................................................................................... revolutions per minute. 

SAE ........................................................................................................................... Society of Automotive Engineers. 

SCR .......................................................................................................................... selective catalytic reduction. 

THC ........................................................................................................................... total hydrocarbon. 

THCE ........................................................................................................................ total hydrocarbon equivalent. 

ULSD ........................................................................................................................ ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel. 

U.S.C. ....................................................................................................................... United States Code. 

§ 1042.810 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 

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) SAE material. Table 1 of this 

section lists material from the Society of 

Automotive Engineers that we have 

incorporated by reference. The first 

column lists the number and name of 

the material. The second column lists 

the sections of this part where we 

reference it. Anyone may purchase 

copies of these materials from the 

Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 

Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 

15096 or http://www.sae.org. Table 1 

follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1042.810—SAE 

MATERIALS

Document number and name Part 1042 

reference 

SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic 

Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, revised 

May 1998 .............................. 1042.135 

(b) IMO material. Table 2 of 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 3 follows: 

TABLE 2 OF § 1042.810.—IMO 

MATERIALS

Document number and name Part 1042 

reference 

Resolution 2—Technical Code 

on Control of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine 

Diesel Engines, 1997.A ........ 1042.801 

§ 1042.815 Confidential information. 

(a) Clearly show what you consider 

confidential by marking, circling, 

bracketing, stamping, or some other 

method. 

(b) We will store your confidential 

information as described in 40 CFR part 

2. Also, we will disclose it only as 

specified in 40 CFR part 2. This applies 

both to any information you send us and 

to any information we collect from 

inspections, audits, or other site visits. 

(c) If you send us a second copy 

without the confidential information, 

we will assume it contains nothing 

confidential whenever we need to 

release information from it. 

(d) If you send us information without 

claiming it is confidential, we may make 

it available to the public without further 

notice to you, as described in 40 CFR 

2.204. 

§ 1042.820 Hearings. 

(a) You may request a hearing under 

certain circumstances, as described 

elsewhere in this part. To do this, you 

must file a written request, including a 

description of your objection and any 

supporting data, within 30 days after we 

make a decision. 

(b) For a hearing you request under 

the provisions of this part, we will 

approve your request if we find that 

your request raises a substantial factual 

issue. 

(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we 

will use the procedures specified in 40 

CFR part 1068, subpart G. 

§ 1042.825 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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16108 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(a) We specify the following 

requirements related to engine 

certification in this part 1042: 

(1) In § 1042.135 we require engine 

manufacturers to keep certain records 

related to duplicate labels sent to vessel 

manufacturers. 

(2) In § 1042.145 we state the 

requirements for interim provisions. 

(3) In subpart C of this part we 

identify a wide range of information 

required to certify engines. 

(4) In §§ 1042.345 and 1042.350 we 

specify certain records related to 

production-line testing. 

(5) 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. 

(6) In §§ 1042.725, 1042.730, and 

1042.735 we specify certain records 

related to averaging, banking, and 

trading. 

(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. 

Appendix I to Part 1042—Summary of 

Previous Emission Standards 

The following standards apply to marine 

compression-ignition engines produced 

before the model years specified in § 1042.1: 

(a) Engines below 37 kW. Tier 1 and Tier 

2 standards for engines below 37 kW apply 

as specified in 40 CFR part 89 and 

summarized in the following table: 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX I.—EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ENGINES BELOW 37 KW (G/KW-HR) 

Rated power (kW) Tier Model 

year1 

NMHC 

+ NOX CO PM 

kW<8 ........................................................................ Tier 1 ....................................................................... 2000 10.5 8.0 1 .0 

Tier 2 ....................................................................... 2005 7.5 8.0 0 .80 

8=kW<19 ................................................................. Tier 1 ....................................................................... 2000 9.5 6.6 0 .80 

Tier 2 ....................................................................... 2005 7.5 6.6 0 .80 

19=kW<37 ............................................................... Tier 1 ....................................................................... 1999 9.5 5.5 0 .8 

Tier 2 ....................................................................... 2004 7.5 5.5 0 .6 

(b) Engines at or above 37 kW. Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 standards for engines at or above 37 

kW apply as specified in 40 CFR part 94 and 

summarized as follows: 

(1) Tier 1 standards. NOX emissions from 

model year 2004 and later engines with 

displacement of 2.5 or more liters per 

cylinder may not exceed the following 

values: 

(i) 17.0 g/kW-hr when maximum test speed 

is less than 130 rpm. 

(ii) 45.0×N–0.20 when maximum test speed 

is at least 130 but less than 2000 rpm, where 

N is the maximum test speed of the engine 

in revolutions per minute. Round the 

calculated standard to the nearest 0.1 g/kWhr. 

(ii) 9.8 g/kW-hr when maximum test speed 

is 2000 rpm or more. 

(2) Tier 2 primary standards. Exhaust 

emissions may not exceed the values shown 

in the following table: 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX I.—PRIMARY TIER 2 EMISSION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL MARINE

ENGINES AT OR ABOVE 37 KW (G/KW-HR) 

Engine Size liters/cylinder, rated 

power Maximum engine power Category Model year 

THC+NOX

g/kW-hr 

CO g/ 

kW-hr 

PM g/ 

kW-hr 

disp. < 0.9 ................................... power ≡ 37 kW .......................... Category 1 ................................. 2005 7.5 5.0 0.40 

0.9 = disp. < 1.2 ......................... All ............................................... Category 1 ................................. 2004 7.2 5.0 0.30 

1.2 = disp. < 2.5 ......................... All ............................................... Category 1 ................................. 2004 7.2 5.0 0.20 

2.5 = disp. < 5.0 ......................... All ............................................... Category 1 ................................. 2007 7.2 5.0 0.20 

5.0 = disp. < 15.0 ....................... All ............................................... Category 2 ................................. 2007 7.8 5.0 0.27 

15.0 = disp. < 20.0 ..................... power < 3300 kW ...................... Category 2 ................................. 2007 8.7 5.0 0.50 

15.0 = disp. < 20.0 ..................... power ≡ 3300 kW ...................... Category 2 ................................. 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50 

20.0 = disp. < 25.0 ..................... All ............................................... Category 2 ................................. 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50 

25.0 = disp. < 30.0 ..................... All ............................................... Category 2 ................................. 2007 11 5 0.5 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16109 

(3) Tier 2 supplemental standards. Not-toexceed emission standards apply for Tier 2 

engines as specified in 40 CFR 94.8(e). 

Appendix II to Part 1042—Steady-State Duty 

Cycles 

(a) Test commercial propulsion engines 

with maximum engine power at or above 19 

kW that are used with (or intended to be used 

with) fixed-pitch propellers with one of the 

cycles specified in this paragraph (a). Use 

one of these duty cycles also for any other 

engines for which the other duty cycles of 

this appendix do not apply. 

(1) The following duty cycle applies for 

discrete-mode testing: 

E3 mode number Engine speed 1

Percent of 

maximum test 

power 

Weighting factors 

1 ................................................................................................................................................ Maximum test 100 0 .2 

2 ................................................................................................................................................ 91% 75 0 .5 

3 ................................................................................................................................................ 80% 50 0 .15 

4 ................................................................................................................................................ 63% 25 0 .15 

1Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed values are relative to maximum test speed. 

(2) The following duty cycle applies for 

ramped-modal testing: 

RMC mode Time in mode 

(seconds) Engine speed 1 3 Power (percent) 2 3

1a Steady-state ....................................... 229 Maximum test speed ............................... 100%. 

1b Transition ............................................ 20 Linear transition ....................................... Linear transition in torque. 

2a Steady-state ....................................... 166 63% ......................................................... 25%. 

2b Transition ............................................ 20 Linear transition ....................................... Linear transition in torque. 

3a Steady-state ....................................... 570 91% ......................................................... 75%. 

3b Transition ............................................ 20 Linear transition ....................................... Linear transition in torque. 

4a Steady-state ....................................... 175 80% ......................................................... 50%. 

1Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed is relative to maximum test speed. 

2The percent power is relative to the maximum test power. 

3Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the 

torquesetting of the current mode to the torque setting of the next mode, and simultaneously command a similar linear progression for engine 

speed if there is a change in speed setting. 

(b) Test recreational engines that are used 

with (or intended to be used with) fixedpitch propellers with maximum engine 

power at or above 19 kW with one of the 

following steady-state duty cycles: 

(1) The following duty cycle applies for 

discrete-mode testing: 

E5 mode number Engine speed 1

Percent of 

maximum test 

power 

Weighting factors 

1 ................................................................................... Maximum test .............................................................. 100 0 .08 

2 ................................................................................... 91% ............................................................................. 75 0 .13 

3 ................................................................................... 80% ............................................................................. 50 0 .17 

4 ................................................................................... 63% ............................................................................. 25 0 .32 

5 ................................................................................... Idle ............................................................................... 0 0 .3 

1Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed values are relative to maximum test speed. 

(2) The following duty cycle applies for 

ramped-modal testing: 

RMC mode 

Time in 

mode 

(seconds) 

Engine speed 1 3 Power 

(percent) 2 3

1a Steady-state ...................................... 167 Warm Idle ................................................. 0. 

1b Transition ........................................... 20 Linear transition ........................................ Linear transition in torque. 

2a Steady-state ...................................... 85 Maximum test speed ................................ 100%. 

2b Transition ........................................... 20 Linear transition ........................................ Linear transition in torque. 

3a Steady-state ...................................... 354 63% ........................................................... 25%. 

3b Transition ........................................... 20 Linear transition ........................................ Linear transition in torque. 

4a Steady-state ...................................... 141 91% ........................................................... 75%. 

4b Transition ........................................... 20 Linear transition ........................................ Linear transition in torque. 

5a Steady-state ...................................... 182 80% ........................................................... 50%. 

5b Transition ........................................... 20 Linear transition ........................................ Linear transition in torque. 

6 Steady-state ........................................ 171 Warm Idle ................................................. 0. 

1Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed is relative to maximum test speed. 

2The percent power is relative to the maximum test power. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

3Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the 

torque setting of the current mode to the torque setting of the next mode, and simultaneously command a similar linear progression for engine 

speed if there is a change in speed setting. 

(c) Test any constant-speed/propulsion 

engines that are used with (or intended to be 

used with) variable-pitch propellers or with 

electrically coupled propellers with one of 

the following steady-state duty cycles: 

(1) The following duty cycle applies for 

discrete-mode testing: 

E2 mode number Engine speed 1

Observed 

torque 

(percent) 2

Weighting 

factors 

1 ....................................................................................... Engine Governed ............................................................ 100 0 .2 

2 ....................................................................................... Engine Governed ............................................................ 75 0 .5 

3 ....................................................................................... Engine Governed ............................................................ 50 0 .15 

4 ....................................................................................... Engine Governed ............................................................ 25 0 .15 

1Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. 

2The percent torque is relative to the maximum test torque as defined in 40 CFR part 1065. 

(2) The following duty cycle applies for 

ramped-modal testing: 

RMC mode Time in mode 

(seconds) Engine speed Torque (percent) 1 2

1a Steady-state ..................................... 234 Engine Governed .................................... 100%. 

1b Transition ......................................... 20 Engine Governed .................................... Linear transition. 

2a Steady-state ..................................... 571 Engine Governed .................................... 25%. 

2b Transition ......................................... 20 Engine Governed .................................... Linear transition. 

3a Steady-state ..................................... 165 Engine Governed .................................... 75%. 

3b Transition ......................................... 20 Engine Governed .................................... Linear transition. 

4a Steady-state ..................................... 170 Engine Governed .................................... 50%. 

1The percent torque is relative to the maximum test torque as defined in 40 CFR part 1065. 

2Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the 

torque setting of the current mode to the torque setting of the next mode. 

Appendix III to Part 1042—Not-to-Exceed 

Zones 

(a) The following Figure 1 illustrates the 

default NTE zone for commercial marine 

engines certified using the duty cycle 

specified in § 1042.505(b)(1): 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16111 

(1) Subzone 1 is defined as follows, where 

percent power is equal to the percentage of 

the maximum power achieved at Maximum Test Speed and percent speed is the 

percentage of Maximum Test Speed: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.007</GPH>
16112 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent 

speed)∧2.5, and 

(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/ 

0.9)∧3.5, and 

(iii) Percent power > 3.0. × (100% ¥ 

percent speed). 

(2) Sub zone 2 is defined as follows, where 

percent power is equal to the percentage of 

the maximum power achieved at Maximum 

Test Speed and percent speed is the 

percentage of Maximum Test Speed: 

(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent 

speed)∧2.5, and 

(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/ 

0.9)∧3.5, and 

(iii) Percent power > 3.0. × (100% ¥ 

percent speed), and 

(iv) Percent power > 70% of Maximum 

Test Speed. 

(b) The following Figure 2 illustrates the 

defaut NTE zone for recreational marine 

propulsion engines that are used with (or 

intended to be used with) fixed-pitch 

propellers: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16113 

(1) Sub zone 1 is defined as follows, where 

percent power is equal to the percentage of 

the maximum power achieved at Maximum Test Speed and percent speed is the 

percentage of Maximum Test Speed: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.008</GPH>
16114 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent 

speed)∧2.5, and 

(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/ 

0.9)∧3.5, and 

(iii) Percent power > 3.0 × (100% ¥ 

percent speed). 

(iv) Percent power < 95% of the maximum 

power at Maximum Text Speed. 

(2) Sub zone 2 is defined as follows, where 

percent power is equal to the percentage of 

the maximum power achieved at Maximum 

Test Speed and percent speed is the 

percentage of Maximum Test Speed: 

(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent 

speed)∧2.5, and 

(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/ 

0.9)∧3.5, and 

(iii) Percent power < 3.0 × (100% ¥ 

percent speed), and 

(iv) Percent speed > 70% of Maximum Test 

Speed. 

(v) Any power > 95% of the maximum 

power at Maximum Test Speed 

(c) The following Figure 3 illustrates the 

default NTE zone for constant speed engines 

certified using either the duty cycle specified 

in § 1042.505(b)(3)(I) or in § 1042.505(b)(4)(i): 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16115 

(1) Subzone 1 is defined in § 1039.101(e). 

(2) Subzone 2 is defined in § 1039.515(b). 

(d) The following Figure 4 illustrates the 

default NTE zone for variable speed and load 

engines certified using either the duty cycle 

specified in § 1042.505(b)(3)(ii) or in 

§ 1042.505(b)(4)(ii): 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.009</GPH>
16116 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16117 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

(1) Subzone 1 is defined in § 1039.101(e). 

(2) Subzone 2 is defined in § 1039.515(b). 

PART 1065—ENGINE-TESTING 

PROCEDURES 

14. The authority citation for part 

1065 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

15. Section 1065.1 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.1 Applicability. 

(a) This part describes the procedures 

that apply to testing we require for the 

following engines or for vehicles using 

the following engines: 

(1) Locomotives we regulate under 40 

CFR part 1033. For earlier model years, 

manufacturers may use the test 

procedures in this part or those 

specified in 40 CFR part 92 according to 

§ 1065.10. 

(2) Model year 2010 and later heavyduty highway engines we regulate under 

40 CFR part 86. For earlier model years, 

manufacturers may use the test 

procedures in this part or those 

specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, 

according to § 1065.10. 

(3) Nonroad diesel engines we 

regulate under 40 CFR part 1039 and 

stationary diesel engines that are 

certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 

1039 as specified in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart IIII. For earlier model years, 

manufacturers may use the test 

procedures in this part or those 

specified in 40 CFR part 89 according to 

§ 1065.10. 

(4) Marine diesel engines we regulate 

under 40 CFR part 1042. For earlier 

model years, manufacturers may use the 

test procedures in this part or those 

specified in 40 CFR part 94 according to 

§ 1065.10. 

(5) Marine spark-ignition engines we 

regulate under 40 CFR part 1045. For 

earlier model years, manufacturers may 

use the test procedures in this part or 

those specified in 40 CFR part 91 

according to § 1065.10. 

(6) Large nonroad spark-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1048, and stationary engines that are 

certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 

1048 as specified in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ. 

(7) Vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR 

part 1051 (such as snowmobiles and offhighway motorcycles) based on engine 

testing. See 40 CFR part 1051, subpart 

F, for standards and procedures that are 

based on vehicle testing. 

(8) Small nonroad spark-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1054 and stationary engines that are 

certified to the standards in 40 CFR part 

1054 as specified in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart JJJJ. For earlier model years, 

manufacturers may use the test 

procedures in this part or those 

specified in 40 CFR part 90 according to 

§ 1065.10. 

(b) The procedures of this part may 

apply to other types of engines, as 

described in this part and in the 

standard-setting part. 

(c) This part is addressed to you as a 

manufacturer of engines, vehicles, 

equipment, and vessels, but it applies 

equally to anyone who does testing for 

you. For example, if you manufacture 

engines that must be tested according to 

this part, this part applies to you. This 

part is also addressed to any 

manufacturer or supplier of test 

equipment, instruments, supplies, or 

any other goods or services related to 

the procedures, requirements, 

recommendations, or options in this 

part. For example, if you are an 

instrument manufacturer, this part 

applies to you. 

(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. 

(e) Unless we specify otherwise, the 

terms ‘‘procedures’’ and ‘‘test 

procedures’’ in this part include all 

aspects of engine testing, including the 

equipment specifications, calibrations, 

calculations, and other protocols and 

procedural specifications needed to 

measure emissions. 

(f) For vehicles, equipment, or vessels 

subject to this part and regulated under 

vehicle-based, equipment-based, or 

vessel-based standards, use good 

engineering judgment to interpret the 

term ’’engine’’ in this part to include 

vehicles, equipment, or vessels, where 

appropriate. 

(g) For additional information 

regarding these test procedures, visit our 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov, and in 

particular http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

testingregs.htm. 

16. Section 1065.2 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.2 Submitting information to EPA 

under this part. 

* * * * * 

(c) We may void any certificates or 

approvals associated with a submission 

of information if we find that you 

intentionally submitted false, 

incomplete, or misleading information. 

For example, if we find that you 

intentionally submitted incomplete 

information to mislead EPA when 

requesting approval to use alternate test 

procedures, we may void the certificates 

for all engines families certified based 

on emission data collected using the 

alternate procedures. This would also 

apply if you ignore data from 

incomplete tests or from repeat tests 

with higher emission results. 

* * * * * 

17. Section 1065.5 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.5 Overview of this part 1065 and its 

relationship to the standard-setting part. 

(a) This part specifies procedures that 

apply generally to testing various 

categories of engines. See the standardsetting part for directions in applying 

specific provisions in this part for a 

particular type of engine. Before using 

this part’s procedures, read the 

standard-setting part to answer at least 

the following questions: 

(1) What duty cycles must I use for 

laboratory testing? 

(2) Should I warm up the test engine 

before measuring emissions, or do I 

need to measure cold-start emissions 

during a warm-up segment of the duty 

cycle? 

(3) Which exhaust gases do I need to 

measure? 

(4) Do any unique specifications 

apply for test fuels? 

(5) What maintenance steps may I 

take before or between tests on an 

emission-data engine? 

(6) Do any unique requirements apply 

to stabilizing emission levels on a new 

engine? 

(7) Do any unique requirements apply 

to test limits, such as ambient 

temperatures or pressures? 

(8) Is field testing required or allowed, 

and are there different emission 

standards or procedures that apply to 

field testing? 

(9) Are there any emission standards 

specified at particular engine-operating 

conditions or ambient conditions? 

(10) Do any unique requirements 

apply for durability testing? 

(b) The testing specifications in the 

standard-setting part may differ from the 

specifications in this part. In cases 

where it is not possible to comply with 

both the standard-setting part and this 

part, you must comply with the 

specifications in the standard-setting 

part. The standard-setting part may also 

allow you to deviate from the 

procedures of this part for other reasons. 

(c) The following table shows how 

this part divides testing specifications 

into subparts: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16118 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.5—DESCRIPTION

OF PART 1065 SUBPARTS

This subpart Describes these specifications or procedures 

Subpart A ....... Applicability and general provisions. 

Subpart B ....... Equipment for testing. 

Subpart C ....... Measurement instruments 

for testing. 

Subpart D ....... Calibration and performance 

verifications for measurement systems. 

Subpart E ....... How to prepare engines for 

testing, including service 

accumulation. 

Subpart F ....... How to run an emission test 

over a predetermined duty 

cycle. 

Subpart G ...... Test procedure calculations. 

Subpart H ....... Fuels, engine fluids, analytical gases, and other calibration standards. 

Subpart I ........ Special procedures related 

to oxygenated fuels. 

Subpart J ....... How to test with portable 

emission measurement 

systems (PEMS). 

18. Section 1065.10 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory 

text and (c)(7) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.10 Other procedures. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The objective of the procedures in 

this part is to produce emission 

measurements equivalent to those that 

would result from measuring emissions 

during in-use operation using the same 

engine configuration as installed in a 

vehicle, equipment, or vessel. However, 

in unusual circumstances these 

procedures may result in measurements 

that do not represent in-use operation. 

You must notify us if good engineering 

judgment indicates that the specified 

procedures cause unrepresentative 

emission measurements for your 

engines. Note that you need not notify 

us of unrepresentative aspects of the test 

procedure if measured emissions are 

equivalent to in-use emissions. This 

provision does not obligate you to 

pursue new information regarding the 

different ways your engine might 

operate in use, nor does it obligate you 

to collect any other in-use information 

to verify whether or not these test 

procedures are representative of your 

engine’s in-use operation. If you notify 

us of unrepresentative procedures under 

this paragraph (c)(1), we will cooperate 

with you to establish whether and how 

the procedures should be appropriately 

changed to result in more representative 

measurements. While the provisions of 

this paragraph (c)(1) allow us to be 

responsive to issues as they arise, we 

would generally work toward making 

these testing changes generally 

applicable through rulemaking. We will 

allow reasonable lead time for 

compliance with any resulting change 

in procedures. We will consider the 

following factors in determining the 

importance of pursuing changes to the 

procedures: 

* * * * * 

(7) You may request to use alternate 

procedures, or procedures that are more 

accurate or more precise than the 

allowed procedures. The following 

provisions apply to requests for 

alternate procedures: 

* * * * * 

19. Section 1065.12 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.12 Approval of alternate 

procedures. 

(a) To get approval for an alternate 

procedure under § 1065.10(c), send the 

Designated Compliance Officer an 

initial written request describing the 

alternate procedure and why you 

believe it is equivalent to the specified 

procedure. Anyone may request 

alternate procedure approval. This 

means that an individual engine 

manufacturer may request to use an 

alternate procedure. This also means 

that an instrument manufacturer may 

request to have an instrument, 

equipment, or procedure approved as an 

alternate procedure to those specified in 

this part. We may approve your request 

based on this information alone, or, as 

described in this section, we may ask 

you to submit to us in writing 

supplemental information showing that 

your alternate procedure is consistently 

and reliably at least as accurate and 

repeatable as the specified procedure. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Theoretical basis. Give a brief 

technical description explaining why 

you believe the proposed alternate 

procedure should result in emission 

measurements equivalent to those using 

the specified procedure. You may 

include equations, figures, and 

references. You should consider the full 

range of parameters that may affect 

equivalence. For example, for a request 

to use a different NOX measurement 

procedure, you should theoretically 

relate the alternate detection principle 

to the specified detection principle over 

the expected concentration ranges for 

NO, NO2, and interference gases. For a 

request to use a different PM 

measurement procedure, you should 

explain the principles by which the 

alternate procedure quantifies 

particulate mass similarly to the 

specified procedures. 

* * * * * 

20. Section 1065.15 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.15 Overview of procedures for 

laboratory and field testing. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Engine operation. Engine 

operation is specified over a test 

interval. A test interval is the time over 

which an engine’s total mass of 

emissions and its total work are 

determined. Refer to the standardsetting part for the specific test intervals 

that apply to each engine. Testing may 

involve measuring emissions and work 

during the following types of engine 

operation: 

(i) Laboratory testing. Under this type 

of testing, you determine brake-specific 

emissions for duty-cycle testing by 

using an engine dynamometer in a 

laboratory or other environment. This 

typically consists of one or more test 

intervals, each defined by a duty cycle, 

which is a sequence of modes, speeds, 

and/or torques that an engine must 

follow. If the standard-setting part 

allows it, you may also simulate field 

testing by running on an engine 

dynamometer in a laboratory or other 

environment. 

(ii) Field testing. This type of testing 

consists of normal in-use engine 

operation while an engine is installed in 

a vehicle, equipment, or vessel. The 

standard-setting part specifies how test 

intervals are defined for field testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) The following figure illustrates the 

allowed measurement configurations 

described in this part 1065: 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16119 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.011</GPH>
16120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

21. Section 1065.20 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.20 Units of measure and overview 

of calculations. 

* * * * * 

(f) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret a 

range as a tolerance unless we explicitly 

identify it as an accuracy, repeatability, 

linearity, or noise specification. See 

§ 1065.1001 for the definition of 

tolerance. In this part, we specify two 

types of ranges: 

(1) Whenever we specify a range by a 

single value and corresponding limit 

values above and below that value, 

target any associated control point to 

that single value. Examples of this type 

of range include ‘‘±10% of maximum 

pressure’’, or ‘‘(30 ± 10) kPa’’. 

(2) Whenever we specify a range by 

the interval between two values, you 

may target any associated control point 

to any value within that range. An 

example of this type of range is ‘‘(40 to 

50) kPa’’. 

(g) Scaling of specifications with 

respect to an applicable standard. 

Because this part 1065 is applicable to 

a wide range of engines and emission 

standards, some of the specifications in 

this part are scaled with respect to an 

engine’s applicable standard or 

maximum power. This ensures that the 

specification will be adequate to 

determine compliance, but not overly 

burdensome by requiring unnecessarily 

high-precision equipment. Many of 

these specifications are given with 

respect to a ‘‘flow-weighted mean’’ that 

is expected at the standard or during 

testing. Flow-weighted mean is the 

mean of a quantity after it is weighted 

proportional to a corresponding flow 

rate. For example, if a gas concentration 

is measured continuously from the raw 

exhaust of an engine, its flow-weighted 

mean concentration is the sum of the 

products of each recorded concentration 

times its respective exhaust flow rate, 

divided by the sum of the recorded flow 

rates. As another example, the bag 

concentration from a CVS system is the 

same as the flow-weighted mean 

concentration, because the CVS system 

itself flow-weights the bag 

concentration. Refer to § 1065.602 for 

information needed to estimate and 

calculate flow-weighted means. 

Wherever a specification is scaled to a 

value based upon an applicable 

standard, interpret the standard to be 

the family emission limit if the engine 

is certified under an emission credit 

program in the standard-setting part. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

22. Section 1065.101 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.101 Overview. 

(a) This subpart specifies equipment, 

other than measurement instruments, 

related to emission testing. The 

provisions of this subpart apply for all 

testing in laboratories or other 

environments where engine speeds and 

loads are controlled to follow a 

prescribed duty cycle. See subpart J of 

this part to determine which of the 

provisions of this subpart apply for field 

testing. This equipment includes three 

broad categories—dynamometers, 

engine fluid systems (such as fuel and 

intake-air systems), and emissionsampling hardware. 

* * * * * 

23. Section 1065.110 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.110 Work inputs and outputs, 

accessory work, and operator demand. 

(a) Work. Use good engineering 

judgment to simulate all engine work 

inputs and outputs as they typically 

would operate in use. Account for work 

inputs and outputs during an emission 

test by measuring them; or, if they are 

small, you may show by engineering 

analysis that disregarding them does not 

affect your ability to determine the net 

work output by more than ±0.5% of the 

net expected work output over the test 

interval. Use equipment to simulate the 

specific types of work, as follows: 

(1) Shaft work. Use an engine 

dynamometer that is able to meet the 

cycle-validation criteria in § 1065.514 

over each applicable duty cycle. 

(i) You may use eddy-current and 

water-brake dynamometers for any 

testing that does not involve engine 

motoring, which is identified by 

negative torque commands in a 

reference duty cycle. See the standard 

setting part for reference duty cycles 

that are applicable to your engine. 

(ii) You may use alternating-current or 

direct-current motoring dynamometers 

for any type of testing. 

(iii) You may use one or more 

dynamometers. 

(iv) You may use any device that is 

already installed on a vehicle, 

equipment, or vessel to absorb work 

from the engine’s output shaft(s). 

Examples of these types of devices 

include a vessel’s propeller and a 

locomotive’s generator. 

(2) Electrical work. Use one or more 

of the following to simulate electrical 

work: 

(i) Use storage batteries or capacitors 

that are of the type and capacity 

installed in use. 

(ii) Use motors, generators, and 

alternators that are of the type and 

capacity installed in use. 

(iii) Use a resistor load bank to 

simulate electrical loads. 

(3) Pump, compressor, and turbine 

work. Use pumps, compressors, and 

turbines that are of the type and 

capacity installed in use. Use working 

fluids that are of the same type and 

thermodynamic state as normal in-use 

operation. 

* * * * * 

(e) Operator demand for shaft work. 

Operator demand is defined in 

§ 1065.1001. Command the operator 

demand and the dynamometer(s) to 

follow a prescribed duty cycle with set 

points for engine speed and torque at 5 

Hz (or more frequently) for transient 

testing or 1 Hz (or more frequently) for 

steady-state testing. Refer to the 

standard-setting part to determine the 

specifications for your duty cycle(s). 

Use a mechanical or electronic input to 

control operator demand such that the 

engine is able to meet the validation 

criteria in § 1065.514 over each 

applicable duty cycle. Record feedback 

values for engine speed and torque at 5 

Hz or more frequently for evaluating 

performance relative to the cycle 

validation criteria. Using good 

engineering judgment, you may improve 

control of operator demand by altering 

on-engine speed and torque controls. 

However, if these changes result in 

unrepresentative testing, you must 

notify us and recommend other test 

procedures under § 1065.10(c)(1). 

24. Section 1065.120 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.120 Fuel properties and fuel 

temperature and pressure. 

(a) Use fuels as specified in the 

standard-setting part, or as specified in 

subpart H of this part if fuels are not 

specified in the standard-setting part. 

* * * * * 

25. Section 1065.122 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text 

and (a)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.122 Engine cooling and lubrication. 

(a) Engine cooling. Cool the engine 

during testing so its intake-air, oil, 

coolant, block, and head temperatures 

are within their expected ranges for 

normal operation. You may use 

auxiliary coolers and fans. 

(1) For air-cooled engines only, if you 

use auxiliary fans you must account for 

work input to the fan(s) according to 

§ 1065.110. 

* * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16121 

26. Section 1065.125 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.125 Engine intake air. 

(a) Use the intake-air system installed 

on the engine or one that represents a 

typical in-use configuration. This 

includes the charge-air cooling and 

exhaust gas recirculation systems. 

(b) Measure temperature, humidity, 

and atmospheric pressure near the 

entrance to the engine’s air filter, or at 

the inlet to the air intake system for 

engines that have no air filter. You may 

use a shared atmospheric pressure meter 

as long as your equipment for handling 

intake air maintains ambient pressure 

where you test the engine within ±1 kPa 

of the shared atmospheric pressure. You 

may use a shared humidity 

measurement for intake air as long as 

your equipment for handling intake air 

maintains dewpoint where you test the 

engine to within ±0.5 °C of the shared 

humidity measurement. 

(c) Unless stated otherwise in the 

standard-setting part, maintain the 

temperature of intake air to (25 ± 5) °C, 

as measured upstream of any engine 

component. 

(d) Use an intake-air restriction that 

represents production engines. Make 

sure the intake-air restriction is between 

the manufacturer’s specified maximum 

for a clean filter and the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum allowed. Measure 

the static differential pressure of the 

restriction at the location and at the 

speed and torque set points specified by 

the manufacturer. If the manufacturer 

does not specify a location, measure this 

pressure upstream of any turbocharger 

or exhaust gas recirculation system 

connection to the intake air system. If 

the manufacturer does not specify speed 

and torque points, measure this pressure 

while the engine outputs maximum 

power. As the manufacturer, you are 

liable for emission compliance for all 

values up to the maximum restriction 

you specify for a particular engine. (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 before 

emission testing. Modulate any 

condensate drain during an emission 

test as it would normally operate in use. 

Maintain coolant conditions as follows: 

(i) Maintain a coolant temperature of 

at least 20 °C at the inlet to the chargeair cooler throughout testing. 

(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 at 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) The objective of this section is to 

produce emission results that are 

representative of in-use operation. If 

good engineering judgment indicates 

that the specifications in this section 

would result in unrepresentative testing 

(such as overcooling of the intake air), 

you may use more sophisticated 

setpoints and controls of charge-air 

pressure drop, coolant temperature, and 

flowrate 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. 

27. Section 1065.130 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.130 Engine exhaust. 

(a) General. Use the exhaust system 

installed with the engine or one that 

represents a typical in-use 

configuration. This includes any 

applicable aftertreatment devices. 

(b) Aftertreatment configuration. If 

you do not use the exhaust system 

installed with the engine, configure any 

aftertreatment devices as follows: 

(1) Position any aftertreatment device 

so its distance from the nearest exhaust 

manifold flange or turbocharger outlet is 

within the range specified by the engine 

manufacturer in the application for 

certification. If this distance is not 

specified, position aftertreatment 

devices to represent typical in-use 

vehicle configurations. 

(2) You may use laboratory exhaust 

tubing upstream of any aftertreatment 

device that is of diameter(s) typical of 

in-use configurations. If you use 

laboratory exhaust tubing upstream of 

any aftertreatment device, position each 

aftertreatment device according to 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(c) Sampling system connections. 

Connect an engine’s exhaust system to 

any raw sampling location or dilution 

stage, as follows: 

(1) Minimize laboratory exhaust 

tubing lengths and use a total length of 

laboratory tubing of no more than 10 m 

or 50 outside diameters, whichever is 

greater. If laboratory exhaust tubing 

consists of several different outside 

tubing diameters, count the number of 

diameters of length of each individual 

diameter, then sum all the diameters to 

determine the total length of exhaust 

tubing in diameters. Use the mean 

outside diameter of any converging or 

diverging sections of tubing. Use outside 

hydraulic diameters of any noncircular 

sections. 

(2) You may install short sections of 

flexible laboratory exhaust tubing at any 

location in the engine or laboratory 

exhaust systems. You may use up to a 

combined total of 2 m or 10 outside 

diameters of flexible exhaust tubing. 

(3) Insulate any laboratory exhaust 

tubing downstream of the first 25 

outside diameters of length. 

(4) Use laboratory exhaust tubing 

materials that are smooth-walled, 

electrically conductive, and not reactive 

with exhaust constituents. Stainless 

steel is an acceptable material. 

(5) We recommend that you use 

laboratory exhaust tubing that has either 

a wall thickness of less than 2 mm or 

is air gap-insulated to minimize 

temperature differences between the 

wall and the exhaust. 

(6) We recommend that you connect 

multiple exhaust stacks from a single 

engine into one stack upstream of any 

emission sampling. To ensure mixing of 

the multiple exhaust streams before 

emission sampling, you may configure 

the exhaust system with turbulence 

generators, such as orifice plates or fins, 

to achieve good mixing. We recommend 

a minimum Reynolds number, Re#, of 

4000 for the combined exhaust stream, 

where Re# is based on the inside 

diameter of the single stack. Re# is 

defined in § 1065.640. 

(d) In-line instruments. You may 

insert instruments into the laboratory 

exhaust tubing, such as an in-line smoke 

meter. If you do this, you may leave a 

length of up to 5 outside diameters of 

laboratory exhaust tubing uninsulated 

on each side of each instrument, but you 

must leave a length of no more than 25 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

outside diameters of laboratory exhaust 

tubing uninsulated in total, including 

any lengths adjacent to in-line 

instruments. 

(e) Leaks. Minimize leaks sufficiently 

to ensure your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. We recommend performing a 

chemical balance of fuel, intake air, and 

exhaust according to § 1065.655 to 

verify exhaust system integrity. 

(f) Grounding. Electrically ground the 

entire exhaust system. 

(g) Forced cooldown. You may install 

a forced cooldown system for an 

exhaust aftertreatment device according 

to § 1065.530(a)(1)(i). 

(h) Exhaust restriction. As the 

manufacturer, you are liable for 

emission compliance for all values up to 

the maximum restriction(s) you specify 

for a particular engine. Measure and set 

exhaust restriction(s) at the location(s) 

and at the speed, torque and 

aftertreatment set points specified by 

the manufacturer. If the manufacturer 

does not specify any location, measure 

this pressure downstream of any 

turbocharger or exhaust gas 

recirculation system connection to the 

exhaust system. If the manufacturer 

does not specify speed and torque 

points, measure this pressure while the 

engine produces maximum power. Use 

an exhaust restriction setpoint that 

represents a typical in-use value, if 

available. 

(1) If a typical in-use value for exhaust 

restriction is not available for exhaust 

systems with a fixed restriction, set the 

exhaust restriction at (80 to 100)% of 

the maximum exhaust restriction 

specified by the manufacturer, or if the 

maximum is 5 kPa or less, the set point 

must be no less than 1.0 kPa from the 

maximum. For example, if the 

maximum back pressure is 4.5 kPa, do 

not use an exhaust restriction set point 

that is less than 3.5 kPa. 

(2) If a typical value for exhaust 

restriction is not available for exhaust 

systems with variable restriction, set the 

exhaust restriction between the 

maximum clean and dirty values 

specified by the manufacturer. 

(i) Open crankcase emissions. If the 

standard-setting part requires measuring 

open crankcase emissions, you may 

either measure open crankcase 

emissions separately using a method 

that we approve in advance, or route 

open crankcase emissions directly into 

the exhaust system for emission 

measurement. If the engine is not 

already configured to route open 

crankcase emissions for emission 

measurement, route open crankcase 

emissions as follows: 

(1) Use laboratory tubing materials 

that are smooth-walled, electrically 

conductive, and not reactive with 

crankcase emissions. Stainless steel is 

an acceptable material. Minimize tube 

lengths. We also recommend using 

heated or thin-walled or air gapinsulated tubing to minimize 

temperature differences between the 

wall and the crankcase emission 

constituents. 

(2) Minimize the number of bends in 

the laboratory crankcase tubing and 

maximize the radius of any unavoidable 

bend. 

(3) Use laboratory crankcase exhaust 

tubing that meets the engine 

manufacturer’s specifications for 

crankcase back pressure. 

(4) Connect the crankcase exhaust 

tubing into the raw exhaust downstream 

of any aftertreatment system, 

downstream of any installed exhaust 

restriction, and sufficiently upstream of 

any sample probes to ensure complete 

mixing with the engine’s exhaust before 

sampling. Extend the crankcase exhaust 

tube into the free stream of exhaust to 

avoid boundary-layer effects and to 

promote mixing. You may orient the 

crankcase exhaust tube’s outlet in any 

direction relative to the raw exhaust 

flow. 

28. Section 1065.140 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM 

constituents. 

(a) General. You may dilute exhaust 

with ambient air, synthetic air, or 

nitrogen. Note that the composition of 

the diluent affects some gaseous 

emission measurement instruments’

response to emissions. We recommend 

diluting exhaust at a location as close as 

possible to the location where ambient 

air dilution would occur in use. 

(b) Dilution-air conditions and 

background concentrations. Before a 

diluent is mixed with exhaust, you may 

precondition it by increasing or 

decreasing its temperature or humidity. 

You may also remove constituents to 

reduce their background concentrations. 

The following provisions apply to 

removing constituents or accounting for 

background concentrations: 

(1) You may measure constituent 

concentrations in the diluent and 

compensate for background effects on 

test results. See § 1065.650 for 

calculations that compensate for 

background concentrations. 

(2) Either measure these background 

concentrations the same way you 

measure diluted exhaust constituents, or 

measure them in a way that does not 

affect your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. For example, you may use 

the following simplifications for 

background sampling: 

(i) You may disregard any 

proportional sampling requirements. 

(ii) You may use unheated gaseous 

sampling systems. 

(iii) You may use unheated PM 

sampling systems. 

(iv) You may use continuous 

sampling if you use batch sampling for 

diluted emissions. 

(v) You may use batch sampling if you 

use continuous sampling for diluted 

emissions. 

(3) For removing background PM, we 

recommend that you filter all dilution 

air, including primary full-flow dilution 

air, with high-efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filters that have an initial 

minimum collection efficiency 

specification of 99.97% (see § 1065.1001 

for procedures related to HEPAfiltration efficiencies). Ensure that 

HEPA filters are installed properly so 

that background PM does not leak past 

the HEPA filters. If you choose to 

correct for background PM without 

using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that 

the background PM in the dilution air 

contributes less than 50% to the net PM 

collected on the sample filter. You may 

correct net PM without restriction if you 

use HEPA filtration. 

(c) Full-flow dilution; constantvolume sampling (CVS). You may dilute 

the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution 

tunnel that maintains a nominally 

constant volume flow rate, molar flow 

rate or mass flow rate of diluted 

exhaust, as follows: 

(1) Construction. Use a tunnel with 

inside surfaces of 300 series stainless 

steel. Electrically ground the entire 

dilution tunnel. We recommend a thinwalled and insulated dilution tunnel to 

minimize temperature differences 

between the wall and the exhaust gases. 

(2) Pressure control. Maintain static 

pressure at the location where raw 

exhaust is introduced into the tunnel 

within ±1.2 kPa of atmospheric 

pressure. You may use a booster blower 

to control this pressure. If you test an 

engine using more careful pressure 

control and you show by engineering 

analysis or by test data that you require 

this level of control to demonstrate 

compliance at the applicable standards, 

we will maintain the same level of static 

pressure control when we test that 

engine. 

(3) Mixing. Introduce raw exhaust 

into the tunnel by directing it 

downstream along the centerline of the 

tunnel. You may introduce a fraction of 

dilution air radially from the tunnel’s 

inner surface to minimize exhaust 

interaction with the tunnel walls. You 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16123 

may configure the system with 

turbulence generators such as orifice 

plates or fins to achieve good mixing. 

We recommend a minimum Reynolds 

number, Re#, of 4000 for the diluted 

exhaust stream, where Re# is based on 

the inside diameter of the dilution 

tunnel. Re# is defined in § 1065.640. 

(4) Flow measurement 

preconditioning. You may condition the 

diluted exhaust before measuring its 

flow rate, as long as this conditioning 

takes place downstream of any sample 

probes, as follows: 

(i) You may use flow straighteners, 

pulsation dampeners, or both of these. 

(ii) You may use a filter. 

(iii) You may use a heat exchanger to 

control the temperature upstream of any 

flow meter. Note paragraph (c)(6) of this 

section regarding aqueous condensation. 

(5) Flow measurement. Section 

1065.240 describes measurement 

instruments for diluted exhaust flow. 

(6) Aqueous condensation. To ensure 

that you measure a flow that 

corresponds to a measured 

concentration, you may either prevent 

aqueous condensation between the 

sample probe location and the flow 

meter inlet in the dilution tunnel or you 

may allow aqueous condensation to 

occur and then measure humidity at the 

flow meter inlet. 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). 

(7) Flow compensation. Maintain 

nominally constant molar, volumetric or 

mass flow of diluted exhaust. You may 

maintain nominally constant flow by 

either maintaining the temperature and 

pressure at the flow meter or by directly 

controlling the flow of diluted exhaust. 

You may also directly control the flow 

of proportional samplers to maintain 

proportional sampling. For an 

individual test, validate proportional 

sampling as described in § 1065.545. 

(d) Partial-flow dilution (PFD). You 

may dilute a partial flow of raw or 

previously diluted exhaust before 

measuring emissions. Section 1065.240 

describes PFD-related flow 

measurement instruments. PFD may 

consist of constant or varying dilution 

ratios as described in paragraphs (d)(2) 

and (3) of this section. An example of 

a constant dilution ratio PFD is a 

‘‘secondary dilution PM’’ measurement 

system. An example of a varying 

dilution ratio PFD is a ‘‘bag minidiluter’’ or BMD. 

(1) Applicability. (i) You may use PFD 

to extract a proportional raw exhaust 

sample for any batch or continuous PM 

emission sampling over any transient 

duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle 

or any ramped-modal cycle (RMC). 

(ii) You may use PFD to extract a 

proportional raw exhaust sample for any 

batch or continuous gaseous emission 

sampling over any transient duty cycle, 

any steady-state duty cycle or any 

ramped-modal cycle (RMC). 

(iii)You may use PFD to extract a 

proportional raw exhaust sample for any 

batch or continuous field-testing. 

(iv) You may use PFD to extract a 

proportional diluted exhaust sample 

from a CVS for any batch or continuous 

emission sampling. 

(v) You may use PFD to extract a 

constant raw or diluted exhaust sample 

for any continuous emission sampling. 

(vi) You may use PFD to extract a 

constant raw or diluted exhaust sample 

for any steady-state emission sampling. 

(2) Constant dilution-ratio PFD. Do 

one of the following for constant 

dilution-ratio PFD: 

(i) Dilute an already proportional 

flow. For example, you may do this as 

a way of performing secondary dilution 

from a CVS tunnel to achieve 

temperature control for PM sampling. 

(ii) Continuously measure constituent 

concentrations. For example, you might 

dilute to precondition a sample of raw 

exhaust to control its temperature, 

humidity, or constituent concentrations 

upstream of continuous analyzers. In 

this case, you must take into account the 

dilution ratio before multiplying the 

continuous concentration by the 

sampled exhaust flow rate. 

(iii) Extract a proportional sample 

from a separate constant dilution ratio 

PFD system. For example, you might 

use a variable-flow pump to 

proportionally fill a gaseous storage 

medium such as a bag from a PFD 

system. In this case, the proportional 

sampling must meet the same 

specifications as varying dilution ratio 

PFD in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

(iv) For each mode of a discrete-mode 

test (such as a locomotive notch setting 

or a specific setting for speed and 

torque), use a constant dilution ratio for 

any batch or continuous sampling. You 

may change the dilution ratio between 

modes, but you must account for this 

change in dilution ratio in your 

emission calculations. Also, you may 

not sample emissions at the same time 

you are changing the dilution ratio from 

one constant dilution ratio to another. 

(3) Varying dilution-ratio PFD. All the 

following provisions apply for varying 

dilution-ratio PFD: 

(i) Use a control system with sensors 

and actuators that can maintain 

proportional sampling over intervals as 

short as 200 ms (i.e., 5 Hz control). 

(ii) For control input, you may use 

any sensor output from one or more 

measurements; for example, intake-air 

flow, fuel flow, exhaust flow, engine 

speed, and intake manifold temperature 

and pressure. 

(iii) Account for any emission transit 

time in the PFD system, as necessary. 

(iv) You may use preprogrammed data 

if they have been determined for the 

specific test site, duty cycle, and test 

engine from which you dilute 

emissions. 

(v) We recommend that you run 

practice cycles to meet the validation 

criteria in § 1065.545. Note that you 

must validate every emission test by 

meeting the validation criteria with the 

data from that specific test. Data from 

previously validated practice cycles or 

other tests may not be used to validate 

a different emission test. 

(vi) You may not use a PFD system 

that requires preparatory tuning or 

calibration with a CVS or with the 

emission results from a CVS. Rather, 

you must be able to independently 

calibrate the PFD. 

(e) Dilution air temperature, dilution 

ratio, residence time, and temperature 

control. 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. Configure 

dilution systems as follows: 

(1) Control dilution air temperature 

just upstream of the mixing zones to 

(25 ± 5) °C. We recommend controlling 

dilution air temperature to within a 

narrower tolerance of (25 ± 1) °C. 

(2) Adjust the dilution system s 

dilution ratio for your particular engine 

and duty cycle to achieve a maximum 

dewpoint of the diluted exhaust of 

(20 ±3) °C. 

(3) Configure your dilution system to 

achieve a sample residence time of (1 to 

5) seconds from the initial point at 

which dilution air was first introduced 

into the exhaust to the sample media. 

When calculating residence time, use an 

assumed flow temperature of 25 °C. 

(4) Control inside wall temperature to 

a (42 to 52) °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. If heat must be rejected 

from the sample to meet this 

requirement, reject the heat after the 

point at which the last dilution air was 

introduced into the diluted exhaust and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

reject as little heat as practical to meet 

this specification. 

29. 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) 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 (c) 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) Probe installation on multi-stack 

engines. We recommend combining 

multiple exhaust streams from multistack engines before emission sampling 

as described in § 1065.130(c)(6). If this 

is impractical, you may install 

symmetrical probes and transfer lines in 

each stack. In this case, each stack must 

be installed such that similar exhaust 

velocities are expected at each probe 

location. Use identical probe and 

transfer line diameters, lengths, and 

bends for each stack. Minimize the 

individual transfer line lengths, and 

manifold the individual transfer lines 

into a single transfer line to route the 

combined exhaust sample to analyzers 

and/or batch samplers. For PM sampling 

the manifold design must merge the 

individual sample streams within 12.5° 

of the single sample stream’s flow. Note 

that the manifold must meet the same 

specifications as the transfer line 

according to paragraph (c) of this 

section. If you use this probe 

configuration and you determine your 

exhaust flow rates with a chemical 

balance of exhaust gas concentrations 

and either intake air flow or fuel flow, 

then show by prior testing that the 

concentration of O2 in each stack 

remains within 5% of the mean O2

concentration throughout the entire 

duty cycle. 

(3) 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 NMHC or NMHCE 

analysis from the diluted exhaust of 

compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke 

spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke 

spark-ignition engines below 19 kW, 

maintain a probe wall temperature 

tolerance of (191 ± 11) °C. 

(4) 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 (e)(1) of this section. We 

recommend sizing the inside diameter 

of PM probes to approximate isokinetic 

sampling at the expected mean flow 

rate. 

(c) Transfer lines. You may use 

transfer lines to transport an extracted 

sample from a probe to an analyzer, 

storage medium, or dilution system. 

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 

(c). 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. 

(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. 

(d) 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 (d)(2) to decrease the effects 

of water on gaseous emission 

measurements. You may not use a 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16125 

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 

(c)(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 

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 efficiency 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 

(d)(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 compression 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 

(e) 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. 

30. Section 1065.170 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous 

and PM constituents. 

Batch sampling involves collecting 

and storing emissions for later analysis. 

Examples of batch sampling include 

collecting and storing gaseous emissions 

in a bag or collecting and storing PM on 

a filter. You may use batch sampling to 

store emissions that have been diluted 

at least once in some way, such as with 

CVS, PFD, or BMD. You may use batchsampling to store undiluted emissions. 

(a) Sampling methods. If you extract 

from a constant-volume flow rate, 

sample at a constant-volume flow rate. 

If you extract from a varying flow rate, 

vary the sample rate in proportion to the 

varying flow rate. Validate proportional 

sampling after an emission test as 

described in § 1065.545. Use storage 

media that do not significantly change 

measured emission levels (either up or 

down). For example, do not use sample 

bags for storing emissions if the bags are 

permeable with respect to emissions or 

if they offgas emissions to the extent 

that it affects your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable gaseous 

emission standards. As another 

example, do not use PM filters that 

irreversibly absorb or adsorb gases to the 

extent that it affects your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable PM emission standard. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) If you use filter-based sampling 

media to extract and store PM for 

measurement, your procedure must 

meet the following specifications: 

(i) If you expect that a filter’s total 

surface concentration of PM will exceed 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

0.473 μg/mm2 for a given test interval, 

you may use filter media with a 

minimum initial collection efficiency of 

98%; otherwise you must use a filter 

media with a minimum initial 

collection efficiency of 99.7%. 

Collection efficiency must be measured 

as described in ASTM D 2986–95a 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010), though you may rely on 

the sample-media manufacturer’s 

measurements reflected in their product 

ratings to show that you meet this 

requirement. 

(ii) The filter must be circular, with an 

overall diameter of 46.50 ± 0.6 mm and 

an exposed diameter of at least 38 mm. 

See the cassette specifications in 

paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section. 

(iii) We highly recommend that you 

use a pure PTFE filter material that does 

not have any flow-through support 

bonded to the back and has an overall 

thickness of 40 ± 20 μm. An inert 

polymer ring may be bonded to the 

periphery of the filter material for 

support and for sealing between the 

filter cassette parts. We consider 

Polymethylpentene (PMP) and PTFE 

inert materials for a support ring, but 

other inert materials may be used. See 

the cassette specifications in paragraph 

(c)(1)(vii) of this section. We allow the 

use of PTFE-coated glass fiber filter 

material, as long as this filter media 

selection does not affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards, which we base on 

a pure PTFE filter material. Note that we 

will use pure PTFE filter material for 

compliance testing, and we may require 

you to use pure PTFE filter material for 

any compliance testing we require, such 

as for selective enforcement audits. 

(iv) You may request to use other 

filter materials or sizes under the 

provisions of § 1065.10. 

(v) To minimize turbulent deposition 

and to deposit PM evenly on a filter, use 

a 12.5° (from center) divergent cone 

angle to transition from the transfer-line 

inside diameter to the exposed diameter 

of the filter face. Use 300 series stainless 

steel for this transition. 

(vi) Maintain sample velocity at the 

filter face at or below 100 cm/s, where 

filter face velocity is the measured 

volumetric flow rate of the sample at the 

pressure and temperature upstream of 

the filter face, divided by the filter’s 

exposed area. 

(vii) Use a clean cassette designed to 

the specifications of Figure 1 of 

§ 1065.170 and made of any of the 

following materials: DelrinTM, 300 series 

stainless steel, polycarbonate, 

acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) 

resin, or conductive polypropylene. We 

recommend that you keep filter 

cassettes clean by periodically washing 

or wiping them with a compatible 

solvent applied using a lint-free cloth. 

Depending upon your cassette material, 

ethanol (C2H5OH) might be an 

acceptable solvent. Your cleaning 

frequency will depend on your engine’s 

PM and HC emissions. 

(viii) If you store filters in cassettes in 

an automatic PM sampler, cover or seal 

individual filter cassettes after sampling 

to prevent communication of semivolatile matter from one filter to 

another. 

* * * * * 

31. Section 1065.190 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e) and (g)(6) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.190 PM-stabilization and weighing 

environments for gravimetric analysis. 

* * * * * 

(e) Verify the following ambient 

conditions using measurement 

instruments that meet the specifications 

in subpart C of this part: 

(1) Continuously measure dewpoint 

and ambient temperature. Use these 

values to determine if the stabilization 

and weighing environments have 

remained within the tolerances 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

for at least 60 min before weighing 

filters. We recommend that you provide 

an interlock that automatically prevents 

the balance from reporting values if 

either of the environments have not 

been within the applicable tolerances 

for the past 60 min. 

(2) Continuously measure 

atmospheric pressure within the 

weighing environment. You may use a 

shared atmospheric pressure meter as 

long as you can show that your 

ventilation system for the weighing 

environment maintains ambient 

pressure at the balance within ±100 Pa 

of the shared atmospheric pressure 

meter. Provide a means to record the 

most recent atmospheric pressure when 

you weigh each PM sample. Use this 

value to calculate the PM buoyancy 

correction in § 1065.690. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(6) We recommend that you neutralize 

PM sample media to within ±2.0 V of 

neutral. Measure static voltages as 

follows: 

(i) Measure static voltage of PM 

sample media according to the 

electrostatic voltmeter manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(ii) Measure static voltage of PM 

sample media while the media is at least 

15 cm away from any grounded surfaces 

to avoid mirror image charge 

interference. 

32. Section 1065.195 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.195 PM-stabilization environment 

for in-situ analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) Absolute pressure. Use good 

engineering judgment to maintain a 

tolerance of absolute pressure if your 

PM measurement instrument requires it. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

33. Section 1065.201 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) and 

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.201 Overview and general 

provisions. 

(a) Scope. This subpart specifies 

measurement instruments and 

associated system requirements related 

to emission testing in a laboratory or 

similar environment and in the field. 

This includes laboratory instruments 

and portable emission measurement 

systems (PEMS) for measuring engine 

parameters, ambient conditions, flowrelated parameters, and emission 

concentrations. 

(b) Instrument types. You may use any 

of the specified instruments as 

described in this subpart to perform 

emission tests. If you want to use one of 

these instruments in a way that is not 

specified in this subpart, or if you want 

to use a different instrument, you must 

first get us to approve your alternate 

procedure under § 1065.10. Where we 

specify more than one instrument for a 

particular measurement, we may 

identify which instrument serves as the 

reference for comparing with an 

alternate procedure. 

* * * * * 

(d) Redundant systems. For all 

measurement instruments described in 

this subpart, you may use data from 

multiple instruments to calculate test 

results for a single test. If you use 

redundant systems, use good 

engineering judgment to use multiple 

measured values in calculations or to 

disregard individual measurements. 

Note that you must keep your results 

from all measurements, as described in 

§ 1065.25. This requirement applies 

whether or not you actually use the 

measurements in your calculations. 

* * * * * 

(h) Recommended practices. This 

subpart identifies a variety of 

recommended but not required practices 

for proper measurements. We believe in 

most cases it is necessary to follow these 

recommended practices for accurate and 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16127 

repeatable measurements and we intend 

to follow them as much as possible for 

our testing. However, we do not 

specifically require you to follow these 

recommended practices to perform a 

valid test, as long as you meet the 

required calibrations and verifications 

of measurement systems specified in 

subpart D of this part. 

34. Section 1065.210 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) before the figure 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.210 Work input and output sensors. 

(a) Application. Use instruments as 

specified in this section to measure 

work inputs and outputs during engine 

operation. We recommend that you use 

sensors, transducers, and meters that 

meet the specifications in Table 1 of 

§ 1065.205. Note that your overall 

systems for measuring work inputs and 

outputs must meet the linearity 

verifications in § 1065.307. We 

recommend that you measure work 

inputs and outputs where they cross the 

system boundary as shown in Figure 1 

of § 1065.210. The system boundary is 

different for air-cooled engines than for 

liquid-cooled engines. If you choose to 

measure work before or after a work 

conversion, relative to the system 

boundary, use good engineering 

judgment to estimate any workconversion losses in a way that avoids 

overestimation of total work. For 

example, if it is impractical to 

instrument the shaft of an exhaust 

turbine generating electrical work, you 

may decide to measure its converted 

electrical work. As another example, 

you may decide to measure the tractive 

(i.e., electrical output) power of a 

locomotive, rather than the brake power 

of the locomotive engine. In these cases, 

divide the electrical work by accurate 

values of electrical generator efficiency 

(h<1), or assume an efficiency of 1 

(h=1), which would overestimate brakespecific emissions. For the example of 

using locomotive tractive power with a 

generator efficiency of 1 (h=1), this 

means using the tractive power as the 

brake power in emission calculations. 

Do not underestimate any work 

conversion efficiencies for any 

components outside the system 

boundary that do not return work into 

the system boundary. And do not 

overestimate any work conversion 

efficiencies for components outside the 

system boundary that do return work 

into the system boundary. In all cases, 

ensure that you are able to accurately 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards. 

* * * * * 

35. Section 1065.215 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.215 Pressure transducers, 

temperature sensors, and dewpoint 

sensors. 

* * * * * 

(e) Dewpoint. For PM-stabilization 

environments, we recommend chilledsurface hygrometers, which include 

chilled mirror detectors and chilled 

surface acoustic wave (SAW) detectors. 

For other applications, we recommend 

thin-film capacitance sensors. You may 

use other dewpoint sensors, such as a 

wet-bulb/dry-bulb psychrometer, where 

appropriate. 

36. Section 1065.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.220 Fuel flow meter. 

* * * * * 

(d) Flow conditioning. For any type of 

fuel flow meter, condition the flow as 

needed to prevent wakes, eddies, 

circulating flows, or flow pulsations 

from affecting the accuracy or 

repeatability of the meter. You may 

accomplish this by using a sufficient 

length of straight tubing (such as a 

length equal to at least 10 pipe 

diameters) or by using specially 

designed tubing bends, straightening 

fins, or pneumatic pulsation dampeners 

to establish a steady and predictable 

velocity profile upstream of the meter. 

Condition the flow as needed to prevent 

any gas bubbles in the fuel from 

affecting the fuel meter. 

37. Section 1065.265 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.265 Nonmethane cutter. 

* * * * * 

(c) Configuration. Configure the 

nonmethane cutter with a bypass line if 

it is needed for the verification 

described in § 1065.365. 

* * * * * 

38. Section 1065.270 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.270 Chemiluminescent detector. 

* * * * * 

(c) NO2-to-NO converter. Place 

upstream of the CLD an internal or 

external NO2-to-NO converter that meets 

the verification in § 1065.378. Configure 

the converter with a bypass line if it is 

needed to facilitate this verification. 

* * * * * 

39. Section 1065.280 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.280 Paramagnetic and 

magnetopneumatic O2 detection analyzers. 

(a) Application. You may use a 

paramagnetic detection (PMD) or 

magnetopneumatic detection (MPD) 

analyzer to measure O2 concentration in 

raw or diluted exhaust for batch or 

continuous sampling. You may use O2

measurements with intake air or fuel 

flow measurements to calculate exhaust 

flow rate according to § 1065.650. 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a PMD or MPD 

analyzer that meets the specifications in 

Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that it must 

meet the linearity verification in 

§ 1065.307. You may use a PMD or MPD 

that has compensation algorithms that 

are functions of other gaseous 

measurements and the engine’s known 

or assumed fuel properties. The target 

value for any compensation algorithm is 

0.0% (that is, no bias high and no bias 

low), regardless of the uncompensated 

signal’s bias. 

40. Section 1065.290 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.290 PM gravimetric balance. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Use a pan that centers the PM 

sample media (such as a filter) on the 

weighing pan. For example, use a pan 

in the shape of a cross that has upswept 

tips that center the PM sample media on 

the pan. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

41. 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: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

§ 1065.307: Linearity ........................................... 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. 

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 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 and temperature: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing 

and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.308: Continuous analyzer system response and recording.Upon initial installation, after system reconfiguration, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.309: Continuous analyzer uniform response.Upon initial installation, after system reconfiguration, and after major maintenance. 

§ 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 sampler and batch verification Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 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, 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. 

42.Section 1065.305 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(8) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.305 Verifications for accuracy, 

repeatability, and noise. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) Use the instrument to quantify a 

NIST-traceable reference quantity, gref.

For gas analyzers the reference gas must 

meet the specifications of § 1065.750. 

Select a reference quantity near the 

mean value expected during testing. For 

all gas analyzers, use a quantity near the 

flow-weighted mean concentration 

expected at the standard or expected 

during testing, whichever is greater. For 

a noise verification, use the same zero 

gas from paragraph (e) of this section as 

the reference quantity. In all cases, 

allow time for the instrument to 

stabilize while it measures the reference 

quantity. Stabilization time may include 

time to purge an instrument and time to 

account for its response. 

* * * * * 

(8) Repeat the steps specified in 

paragraphs (d)(2) through (7) of this 

section until you have ten arithmetic 

means (y1, y2, yi,* * * y10), ten standard 

deviations, (s1, s2, si, * * * s10), and 

ten errors (e1, e2 , ei , * * * e10). 

* * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16129 

43. Section 1065.307 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(6), 

adding paragraph (d)(8) and revising 

Table 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.307 Linearity verification. 

* * * * * 

(b) Performance requirements. If a 

measurement system does not meet the 

applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of 

this section, correct the deficiency by recalibrating, servicing, or replacing 

components as needed. Repeat the 

linearity verification after correcting the 

deficiency to ensure that the 

measurement system meets the linearity 

criteria. Before you may use a 

measurement system that does not meet 

linearity criteria, you must demonstrate 

to us that the deficiency does not 

adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards. 

(c) * * * 

(6) For all measured quantities except 

temperature, use instrument 

manufacturer recommendations and 

good engineering judgment to select at 

least 10 reference values, yrefi, that are 

within the range from zero to the 

highest values expected during emission 

testing. We recommend selecting a zero 

reference signal as one of the reference 

values of the linearity verification. For 

temperature linearity verifications, we 

recommend three to five reference 

values. 

* * * * * 

(13) Use the arithmetic means, y ̄i, and 

reference values, yrefi, to calculate leastsquares linear regression parameters and 

statistical values to compare to the 

minimum performance criteria specified 

in Table 1 of this section. Use the 

calculations described in § 1065.602. 

Using good engineering judgment, you 

may weight the results of individual 

data pairs (i.e., (yrefi, y ̄i )), in the linear 

regression calculations. 

(d) * * * 

(8) Analog-to-digital conversion of 

stand-alone temperature signals. For 

reference values, select a temperature 

signal calibrator to simultaneously 

simulate and measure an analog signal 

similar to your temperature sensor(s). 

Analog signals may include voltage, 

current, resistance, frequency, and pulse 

signals. Use a calibrator that is 

independently linearized and coldjunction compensated, as necessary, and 

is NIST-traceable within ±0.5% 

uncertainty. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.307.—MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATIONS

Measurement system Quantity Minimum verification frequency a

Linearity criteria 

|a0 | b a1 c SEEb r 2

Engine speed ....................................... fn ........... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤0.05% 

fnmax.

0.98–1.02 ≤2% fnmax ≥0.990 

Engine torque ...................................... T ........... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤1% ·Tmax 0.98–1.02 ≤2% Tmax ≥0.990 

Electrical work ..................................... W .......... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤1% ·Tmax 0.98–1.02 ≤2% Tmax ≥0.990 

Fuel flow rate ....................................... m ̊ .......... Within 370 days before testing d ......... ≤1% ·m ̊ max 0.98–1.02 e ≤2% ·m ̊ max ≥0.990 

Intake-air flow rate ............................... n ̊ ........... Within 370 days before testing d ......... ≤1% ·n ̊ max 0.98–1.02 e ≤2% ·nmax ≥0.990 

Dilution air flow rate ............................. n ̊ ........... Within 370 days before testing d ......... ≤1% ·n ̊ max 0.98–1.02 ≤2% ·n ̊ max ≥0.990 

Diluted exhaust flow rate ..................... n ̊ ........... Within 370 days before testing d ......... ≤1% ·n ̊ max 0.98–1.02 ≤2% ·n ̊ max ≥0.990 

Raw exhaust flow rate ......................... n ̊ ........... Within 185 days before testing d ......... ≤1% ·n ̊ max 0.98–1.02 e ≤2% ·n ̊ max ≥0.990 

Batch sampler flow rates ..................... n ̊ ........... Within 370 days before testing d ......... ≤1% ·n ̊ max 0.98–1.02 ≤2% ·n ̊ max ≥0.990 

Gas dividers ......................................... x ........... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤0.5% 

··xmax.

0.98–1.02 ≤2% ·xmax ≥0.990 

All gas analyzers ................................. x ........... Within 35 days before testing ............. ≤1% ·xmax 0.99–1.01 ≤1% ·xmax ≥0.998 

PM balance .......................................... m .......... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤1% ·mmax 0.99–1.01 ≤1% ·mmax ≥0.998 

Stand-alone pressures ........................ p ........... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤1% ·pmax 0.99–1.01 ≤1% ·pmax ≥0.998 

Analog-to-digital conversion of standalone temperature signals.·T .......... Within 370 days before testing ........... ≤1% ·Tmax 0.99–1.01 ≤1% ·Tmax ≥0.998 

aPerform a linearity verification more frequently if the instrument manufacturer recommends it or based on good engineering judgment. b ‘‘max.’’ refers to the peak value expected during testing or at the applicable standard over any test interval, whichever is greater. cThe specified ranges are inclusive. For example, a specified range of 0.98–1.02 for a1 means 0.98≤a1≤1.02. dThese linearity verifications are not required for systems that pass the flow-rate verification for diluted exhaust as described in § 1065.341 

(the propane check) or for systems that agree within ±2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and exhaust. e a1 criteria for these quantities must be met only if the absolute value of the quantity is required, as opposed to a signal that is only linearly 

proportional to the actual value. 

44. Section 1065.308 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.308 Continuous gas analyzer 

system-response and updating-recording 

verification. 

(a) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification after installing or replacing 

a gas analyzer that you use for 

continuous sampling. Also perform this 

verification if you reconfigure your 

system in a way that would change 

system response. For example, perform 

this verification if you add a significant 

volume to the transfer lines by 

increasing their length or adding a filter; 

or if you change the frequency at which 

you sample and record gas-analyzer 

concentrations. You do not have to 

perform this verification for gas analyzer 

systems used only for discrete-mode 

testing. 

(b) Measurement principles. This test 

verifies that the updating and recording 

frequencies match the overall system 

response to a rapid change in the value 

of concentrations at the sample probe. 

Gas analyzer systems must be optimized 

such that their overall response to a 

rapid change in concentration is 

updated and recorded at an appropriate 

frequency to prevent loss of 

information. This test also verifies that 

continuous gas analyzer systems meet a 

minimum response time. 

(c) System requirements. To 

demonstrate acceptable updating and 

recording with respect to the system’s 

overall response, use good engineering 

judgment to select one of the following 

criteria that your system must meet: 

(1) The product of the mean rise time 

and the frequency at which the system 

records an updated concentration must 

be at least 5, and the product of the 

mean fall time and the frequency at 

which the system records an updated 

concentration must be at least 5. These 

criteria make no assumption regarding 

the frequency content of changes in 

emission concentrations during 

emission testing; therefore, it is valid for 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16130 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

any testing. In any case the mean rise 

time and the mean fall time must be no 

more than 10 seconds. 

(2) The frequency at which the system 

records an updated concentration must 

be at least 5 Hz. This criteria assumes 

that the frequency content of significant 

changes in emission concentrations 

during emission testing do not exceed 1 

Hz. In any case the mean rise time and 

the mean fall time must be no more than 

10 seconds. 

(3) You may use other criteria if we 

approve the criteria in advance. 

(4) For PEMS, you do not have to 

meet this criteria if your PEMS meets 

the overall PEMS check in § 1065.920. 

(d) Procedure. Use the following 

procedure to verify the response of a 

continuous gas analyzer system: 

(1) Instrument setup. Follow the 

analyzer system manufacturer’s start-up 

and operating instructions. Adjust the 

system as needed to optimize 

performance. 

(2) Equipment setup. Using minimal 

gas transfer line lengths between all 

connections, connect a zero-air source 

to one inlet of a fast-acting 3-way valve 

(2 inlets, 1 outlet). Using a gas divider, 

equally blend an NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, 

balance N2 span gas with a span gas of 

NO2, balance N2. Connect the gas 

divider outlet to the other inlet of the 3- 

way valve. Connect the valve outlet to 

an overflow at the gas analyzer system’s 

probe or to an overflow fitting between 

the probe and transfer line to all the 

analyzers being verified. Note that you 

may omit any of these gas constituents 

if they are not relevant to your analyzers 

for this verification. 

(3) Data collection. (i) Switch the 

valve to flow zero gas. 

(ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting 

for transport delays and the slowest 

instrument’s full response. 

(iii) Start recording data at the 

frequency used during emission testing. 

Each recorded value must be a unique 

updated concentration measured by the 

analyzer; you may not use interpolation 

to increase the number of recorded 

values. 

(iv) Switch the valve to flow the 

blended span gases. 

(v) Allow for transport delays and the 

slowest instrument’s full response. 

(vi) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section to 

record seven full cycles, ending with 

zero gas flowing to the analyzers. 

(vii) Stop recording. 

(e) Performance evaluation. (1) If you 

chose to demonstrate compliance with 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, use the 

data from paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section to calculate the mean rise time, 

t10–90, and mean fall time, t90–10, for each 

of the analyzers. Multiply these times 

(in seconds) by their respective 

recording frequencies in Hertz (1/ 

second). The value for each result must 

be at least 5. If the value is less than 5, 

increase the recording frequency or 

adjust the flows or design of the 

sampling system to increase the rise 

time and fall time as needed. You may 

also configure digital filters to increase 

rise and fall times. The mean rise time 

and mean fall time must be no greater 

than 10 seconds. 

(2) If a measurement system fails the 

criterion in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, ensure that signals from the 

system are updated and recorded at a 

frequency of at least 5 Hz. In any case, 

the mean rise time and mean fall time 

must be no greater than 10 seconds. 

(3) If a measurement system fails the 

criteria in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 

this section, you may use the 

continuous analyzer system only if the 

deficiency does not adversely affect 

your ability to show compliance with 

the applicable standards. 

45. Section 1065.309 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.309 Continuous gas analyzer 

uniform response verification. 

(a) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification if you multiply or divide 

one continuous gas analyzer’s response 

by another’s to quantify a gaseous 

emission. Note that we consider water 

vapor a gaseous constituent. You do not 

have to perform this verification if you 

multiply one gas analyzer’s response to 

another’s to compensate for an 

interference that never requires a 

compensation more than 2% of the 

flow-weighted mean concentration at 

the applicable standard or during 

testing, whichever is greatest. You also 

do not have to perform this verification 

for batch gas analyzer systems or for 

continuous analyzer systems that are 

only used for discrete-mode testing. 

Perform this verification after initial 

installation or major maintenance. Also 

perform this verification if you 

reconfigure your system in a way that 

would change system response. For 

example, perform this verification if you 

add a significant volume to the transfer 

lines by increasing their length or by 

adding a filter; or if you change the 

frequency at which you sample and 

record gas-analyzer concentrations. 

(b) Measurement principles. This 

procedure verifies the time-alignment 

and uniform response of continuously 

combined gas measurements. 

(c) System requirements. Demonstrate 

that continuously combined 

concentration measurements have a 

uniform rise and fall during a 

simultaneous step change in both 

concentrations. During a system 

response to a rapid change in multiple 

gas concentrations, demonstrate that the 

t50 times of all combined analyzers all 

occur at the same recorded second of 

data or between the same two recorded 

seconds of data. 

(d) Procedure. Use the following 

procedure to verify the response of a 

continuous gas analyzer system: 

(1) Instrument setup. Follow the 

analyzer system manufacturer’s start-up 

and operating instructions. Adjust the 

system as needed to optimize 

performance. 

(2) Equipment setup. Using a gas 

divider, equally blend a span gas of NOCO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, balance N2, with a 

span gas of NO2, balance N2. Connect 

the gas divider outlet to a 100 °C heated 

line. Connect the other end of this line 

to a 100 °C heated three-way tee. Next 

connect a dewpoint generator, set at a 

dewpoint of 50 °C, to one end of a 

heated line at 100 °C. Connect the other 

end of this line to the heated tee and 

connect a third 100 °C heated line from 

the tee to an overflow at the inlet of a 

100 °C heated fast-acting three-way 

valve (two inlets, one outlet). Connect a 

zero-air source, heated to 100 °C, to a 

separate overflow at the other inlet of 

the three-way valve. Connect the threeway valve outlet to the gas analyzer 

system’s probe or to an overflow fitting 

between the probe and transfer line to 

all the analyzers being verified. Note 

that you may omit any of these gas 

constituents if they are not relevant to 

your analyzers for this verification. 

(3) Data collection. (i) Switch the 

valve to flow zero gas. 

(ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting 

for transport delays and the slowest 

instrument’s full response. 

(iii) Start recording data at the 

frequency used during emission testing. 

(iv) Switch the valve to flow span gas. 

(v) Allow for transport delays and the 

slowest instrument’s full response. 

(vi) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section to 

record seven full cycles, ending with 

zero gas flowing to the analyzers. 

(vii) Stop recording. 

(e) Performance evaluations. Perform 

the following evaluations: 

(1) Uniform response evaluation. (i) 

Calculate the mean rise time, t10–90, 

mean fall time, t90–10 for each analyzer. 

(ii) Determine the maximum mean 

rise and fall times for the slowest 

responding analyzer in each 

combination of continuous analyzer 

signals that you use to determine a 

single emission concentration. 

(iii) If the maximum rise time or fall 

time is greater than one second, verify 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16131 

that all other gas analyzers combined 

with it have mean rise and fall times of 

at least 75% of that analyzer’s response. 

If the slowest analyzer has t10–90 and 

t90–10 values less than 1 sec, no 

dispersion is necessary for any of the 

analyzers. 

(iv) If any analyzer has shorter rise or 

fall times, disperse that signal so that it 

better matches the rise and fall times of 

the slowest signal with which it is 

combined. We recommend that you 

perform dispersion using SAE 2001–01–

3536 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010) as a guide. 

(v) Repeat this verification after 

optimizing your systems to ensure that 

you dispersed signals correctly. If after 

repeated attempts at dispersing signals 

your system still fails this verification, 

you may use the continuous analyzer 

system if the deficiency does not 

adversely affect your ability to show 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. 

(2) Time alignment evaluation. (i) 

After all signals are adjusted to meet the 

uniform response evaluation, determine 

the second at which—or the two 

seconds between which—each analyzer 

crossed the midpoint of its response, t50. 

(ii) Verify that all combined gas 

analyzer signals are time-aligned such 

that all of their t50 times occurred at the 

same second or between the same two 

seconds in the recorded data. 

(iii) If your system fails to meet this 

criterion, you may change the time 

alignment of your system and retest the 

system completely. If after changing the 

time alignment of your system, some of 

the t50 times still are not aligned, take 

corrective action by dispersing analyzer 

signals that have the shortest rise and 

fall times. 

(iv) If some t50 times are still not 

aligned after repeated attempts at 

dispersion and time alignment, you may 

use the continuous analyzer system if 

the deficiency does not adversely affect 

your ability to show compliance with 

the applicable standards. 

46. Section 1065.310 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.310 Torque calibration. 

* * * * * 

(d) Strain gage or proving ring 

calibration. This technique applies force 

either by hanging weights on a lever arm 

(these weights and their lever arm 

length are not used as part of the 

reference torque determination) or by 

operating the dynamometer at different 

torques. Apply at least six force 

combinations for each applicable 

torque-measuring range, spacing the 

force quantities about equally over the 

range. Oscillate or rotate the 

dynamometer during calibration to 

reduce frictional static hysteresis. In this 

case, the reference torque is determined 

by multiplying the force output from the 

reference meter (such as a strain gage or 

proving ring) by its effective lever-arm 

length, which you measure from the 

point where the force measurement is 

made to the dynamometer’s rotational 

axis. Make sure you measure this length 

perpendicular to the reference meter’s 

measurement axis and perpendicular to 

the dynamometer’s rotational axis. 

47. Section 1065.340 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f)(6)(ii), (f)(9), and 

(g)(6)(i) and Figure 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.340 Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) 

calibration. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) The mean dewpoint of the 

calibration air, T ̄ dew. See § 1065.640 for 

permissible assumptions during 

emission measurements. 

* * * * * 

(9) Determine Cd and the lowest 

allowable Dp ̄ CFV according to 

§ 1065.640. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(i) The mean flow rate of the reference 

flow meter, nref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities, such as reference meter 

pressures and temperatures, for 

calculating nref. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALSEP03AP07.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16133 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 

48. Section 1065.341 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.341 CVS and batch sampler 

verification (propane check). 

* * * * * 

(g) You may repeat the propane check 

to verify a batch sampler, such as a PM 

secondary dilution system. 

* * * * * 

49. Section 1065.345 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.345 Vacuum-side leak verification. 

(a) Scope and frequency. Upon initial 

sampling system installation, after major 

maintenance, and before each test 

according to subpart F of this part for 

laboratory tests and according to subpart 

J of this part for field tests, verify that 

there are no significant vacuum-side 

leaks using one of the leak tests 

described in this section. This 

verification does not apply to any fullflow portion of a CVS dilution system. 

(b) Measurement principles. A leak 

may be detected either by measuring a 

small amount of flow when there should 

be zero flow, or by detecting the 

dilution of a known concentration of 

span gas when it flows through the 

vacuum side of a sampling system. 

(c) Low-flow leak test. Test a sampling 

system for low-flow leaks as follows: 

(1) Seal the probe end of the system 

by taking one of the following steps: 

(i) Cap or plug the end of the sample 

probe. 

(ii) Disconnect the transfer line at the 

probe and cap or plug the transfer line. 

(iii) Close a leak-tight valve in-line 

between a probe and transfer line. 

(2) Operate all vacuum pumps. After 

stabilizing, verify that the flow through 

the vacuum-side of the sampling system 

is less than 0.5% of the system’s normal 

in-use flow rate. You may estimate 

typical analyzer and bypass flows as an 

approximation of the system’s normal 

in-use flow rate. 

(d) Dilution-of-span-gas leak test. You 

may use any gas analyzer for this test. 

If you use a FID for this test, correct for 

any HC contamination in the sampling 

system according to § 1065.660. To 

avoid misleading results from this test, 

we recommend using only analyzers 

that have a repeatability of 0.5% or 

better at the span gas concentration used 

for this test. Perform a vacuum-side leak 

test as follows: 

(1) Prepare a gas analyzer as you 

would for emission testing. 

(2) Supply span gas to the analyzer 

port and verify that it measures the span 

gas concentration within its expected 

measurement accuracy and 

repeatability. 

(3) Route overflow span gas to one of 

the following locations in the sampling 

system: 

(i) The end of the sample probe. 

(ii) Disconnect the transfer line at the 

probe connection, and overflow the 

span gas at the open end of the transfer 

line. 

(iii) A three-way valve installed inline between a probe and its transfer 

line, such as a system overflow zero and 

span port. 

(4) Verify that the measured overflow 

span gas concentration is within ±0.5% 

of the span gas concentration. A 

measured value lower than expected 

indicates a leak, but a value higher than 

expected may indicate a problem with 

the span gas or the analyzer itself. A 

measured value higher than expected 

does not indicate a leak. 

(e) Vacuum-decay leak test. To 

perform this test you must apply a 

vacuum to the vacuum-side volume of 

your sampling system and then observe 

the leak rate of your system as a decay 

in the applied vacuum. To perform this 

test you must know the vacuum-side 

volume of your sampling system to 

within ±10% of its true volume. For this 

test you must also use measurement 

instruments that meet the specifications 

of subpart C of this part and of this 

subpart D. Perform a vacuum-decay leak 

test as follows: 

(1) Seal the probe end of the system 

as close to the probe opening as possible 

by taking one of the following steps: 

(i) Cap or plug the end of the sample 

probe. 

(ii) Disconnect the transfer line at the 

probe and cap or plug the transfer line. 

(iii) Close a leak-tight valve in-line 

between a probe and transfer line. 

(2) Operate all vacuum pumps. Draw 

a vacuum that is representative of 

normal operating conditions. In the case 

of sample bags, we recommend that you 

repeat your normal sample bag pumpdown procedure twice to minimize any 

trapped volumes. 

(3) Turn off the sample pumps and 

seal the system. Measure and record the 

absolute pressure of the trapped gas, the 

time, and optionally the system absolute 

temperature. Wait at least 60 sec and 

again record the pressure, time, and 

optionally temperature. You may have 

to adjust your wait time by trial and 

error to accurately quantify a change in 

pressure over a time interval. 

(4) Calculate the leak flow rate based 

on an assumed value of zero for 

pumped-down bag volumes and based 

on known values for the sample system 

volume, the initial and final pressures, 

optional temperatures, and elapsed 

time. Verify that the vacuum-decay leak 

flow rate is less than 0.5% of the 

system’s normal in-use flow rate. 

50. Section 1065.350 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.350 H2O interference verification 

for CO2 NDIR analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(c) System requirements. A CO2 NDIR 

analyzer must have an H2O interference 

that is within (0 ±400) μmol/mol., 

though we strongly recommend a lower 

interference that is within (0 ±200) 

μmol/mol. 

(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. 

(2) Create a humidified test gas by 

bubbling zero air that meets the 

specifications in § 1065.750 through 

distilled water in a sealed vessel at (25 

±10) °C. 

(3) Downstream of the vessel, 

maintain the humidified test gas 

temperature at least 5 °C above its 

dewpoint. We recommend using a 

heated transfer line. 

(4) Introduce the humidified test gas 

upstream of any sample dryer, if one is 

used during testing. 

(5) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the transfer 

line and to account for analyzer 

response. 

(6) While the analyzer measures the 

sample’s concentration, record 30 

seconds of sampled data. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of this data. The 

analyzer meets the interference 

verification if this value is within (0 

±400) μmol/mol. 

* * * * * 

51. Section 1065.355 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.355 H2O and CO2 interference 

verification for CO NDIR analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

(2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas 

by bubbling a CO2 span gas through 

distilled water in a sealed vessel at (25 

±10) °C. 

(3) Downstream of the vessel, 

maintain the humidified gas 

temperature at least 5 °C above its 

dewpoint. We recommend using a 

heated transfer line. 

(4) Introduce the humidified CO2 test 

gas upstream of any sample dryer, if one 

is used during testing. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16134 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Measure the humidified CO2 test 

gas dewpoint and pressure as close as 

possible to the inlet of the analyzer, or 

to the inlet of the sample dryer, if one 

is used. 

(6) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the transfer 

line and to account for analyzer 

response. 

(7) While the analyzer measures the 

sample’s concentration, record its 

output for 30 seconds. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of this data. 

(8) Scale the CO2 interference by 

multiplying this mean value (from 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section) by the 

ratio of expected CO2 to span gas CO2

concentration. In other words, estimate 

the flow-weighted mean dry 

concentration of CO2 expected during 

testing, and then divide this value by 

the concentration of CO2 in the span gas 

used for this verification. Then multiply 

this ratio by the mean value recorded 

during this verification (from paragraph 

(d)(7) of this section). 

(9) Scale the H2O interference by 

estimating the flow-weighted mean 

concentration of H2O expected during 

testing, then divide this value by the 

concentration of H2O in the span gas 

used for this verification. Then multiply 

this ratio by the CO2-scaled result of 

paragraph (d)(8) of this section. 

(10) The analyzer meets the 

interference verification if the result of 

paragraph (d)(9) of this section is within 

±2% of the flow-weighted mean 

concentration of CO expected at the 

standard. 

(e) * * * 

(1) You may omit this verification if 

you can show by engineering analysis 

that for your CO sampling system and 

your emission calculations procedures, 

the combined CO2 and H2O interference 

for your CO NDIR analyzer always 

affects your brake-specific CO emission 

results within ±0.5% of the applicable 

CO standard. 

* * * * * 

52. Section 1065.360 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.360 FID optimization and 

verification. 

(a) Scope and frequency. For all FID 

analyzers, calibrate the FID upon initial 

installation. Repeat the calibration as 

needed using good engineering 

judgment. For a FID that measures THC, 

perform the following steps: 

(1) Optimize the response to various 

hydrocarbons after initial analyzer 

installation and after major maintenance 

as described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(2) Determine the methane (CH4) 

response factor after initial analyzer 

installation and after major maintenance 

as described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(3) Verify the methane (CH4) response 

within 185 days before testing as 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(b) Calibration. Use good engineering 

judgment to develop a calibration 

procedure, such as one based on the 

FID-analyzer manufacturer’s 

instructions and recommended 

frequency for calibrating the FID. 

Alternately, you may remove system 

components for off-site calibration. For 

a FID that measures THC, calibrate 

using C3H8 calibration gases that meet 

the specifications of § 1065.750. For a 

FID that measures CH4, calibrate using 

CH4 calibration gases that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. We 

recommend FID analyzer zero and span 

gases that contain approximately the 

flow-weighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. If you use a FID 

to measure methane (CH4) downstream 

of a nonmethane cutter, you may 

calibrate that FID using CH4 calibration 

gases with the cutter. Regardless of the 

calibration gas composition, calibrate on 

a carbon number basis of one (C1). For 

example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 

concentration 200 μmol/mol, span the 

FID to respond with a value of 600 

μmol/mol. As another example, if you 

use a CH4 span gas with a concentration 

of 200 μmol/mol, span the FID to 

respond with a value of 200 μmol/mol. 

(c) THC FID response optimization. 

This procedure is only for FID analyzers 

that measure THC. Use good 

engineering judgment for initial 

instrument start-up and basic operating 

adjustment using FID fuel and zero air. 

Heated FIDs must be within their 

required operating temperature ranges. 

Optimize FID response at the most 

common analyzer range expected during 

emission testing. Optimization involves 

adjusting flows and pressures of FID 

fuel, burner air, and sample to minimize 

response variations to various 

hydrocarbon species in the exhaust. Use 

good engineering judgment to trade off 

peak FID response to propane 

calibration gases to achieve minimal 

response variations to different 

hydrocarbon species. For an example of 

trading off response to propane for 

relative responses to other hydrocarbon 

species, see SAE 770141 (incorporated 

by reference in § 1065.1010). Determine 

the optimum flow rates for FID fuel, 

burner air, and sample and record them 

for future reference. 

(d) THC FID CH4 response factor 

determination. This procedure is only 

for FID analyzers that measure THC. 

Since FID analyzers generally have a 

different response to CH4 versus C3H8, 

determine each THC FID analyzer’s CH4

response factor, RFCH4, after FID 

optimization. Use the most recent 

RFCH4 measured according to this 

section in the calculations for HC 

determination described in § 1065.660 

to compensate for CH4 response. 

Determine RFCH4 as follows, noting that 

you do not determine RFCH4 for FIDs 

that are calibrated and spanned using 

CH4 with a nonmethane cutter: 

(1) Select a C3H8 span gas 

concentration that you use to span your 

analyzers before emission testing. Use 

only span gases that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. Record the 

C3H8 concentration of the gas. 

(2) Select a CH4 span gas 

concentration that you use to span your 

analyzers before emission testing. Use 

only span gases that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. Record the 

CH4 concentration of the gas. 

(3) Start and operate the FID analyzer 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(4) Confirm that the FID analyzer has 

been calibrated using C3H8. Calibrate on 

a carbon number basis of one (C1). For 

example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 

concentration 200 μmol/mol, span the 

FID to respond with a value of 600 

μmol/mol. 

(5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that 

you use for emission testing. 

(6) Span the FID with the C3H8 span 

gas that you selected under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

(7) Introduce at the sample port of the 

FID analyzer, the CH4 span gas that you 

selected under paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. 

(8) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the analyzer 

and to account for its response. 

(9) While the analyzer measures the 

CH4 concentration, record 30 seconds of 

sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic 

mean of these values. 

(10) Divide the mean measured 

concentration by the recorded span 

concentration of the CH4 calibration gas. 

The result is the FID analyzer’s response 

factor for CH4, RFCH4. 

(e) THC FID methane (CH4) response 

verification. This procedure is only for 

FID analyzers that measure THC. If the 

value of RFCH4 from paragraph (d) of 

this section is within ±5.0% of its most 

recent previously determined value, the 

THC FID passes the methane response 

verification. For example, if the most 

recent previous value for RFCH4 was 

1.05 and it changed by ±0.05 to become 

1.10 or it changed by ¥0.05 to become 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16135 

1.00, either case would be acceptable 

because ±4.8% is less than ±5.0%. 

Verify RFCH4 as follows: 

(1) First verify that the pressures and 

flow rates of FID fuel, burner air, and 

sample are each within ±0.5% of their 

most recent previously recorded values, 

as described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. You may adjust these flow rates 

as necessary. Then determine the RFCH4

as described in paragraph (d) of this 

section and verify that it is within the 

tolerance specified in this paragraph (e). 

(2) If RFCH4 is not within the tolerance 

specified in this paragraph (e), reoptimize the FID response as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section. 

(3) Determine a new RFCH4 as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. Use this new value of RFCH4 in 

the calculations for HC determination, 

as described in § 1065.660. 

53. Section 1065.362 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.362 Non-stoichiometric raw 

exhaust FID O2 interference verification. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Determine FID O2

interference as follows, noting that you 

may use one or more gas dividers to 

create the reference gas concentrations 

that are required to perform this 

verification: 

(1) Select two span reference gases 

that contain a C3H8 concentration that 

you use to span your analyzers before 

emission testing. Use only span gases 

that meet the specifications of 

§ 1065.750. You may use CH4 span 

reference gases for FIDs calibrated on 

CH4 with a nonmethane cutter. Select 

the two balance gas concentrations such 

that the concentrations of O2 and N2

represent the minimum and maximum 

O2 concentrations expected during 

testing. 

(2) Confirm that the FID analyzer 

meets all the specifications of 

§ 1065.360. 

(3) Start and operate the FID analyzer 

as you would before an emission test. 

Regardless of the FID burner’s air source 

during testing, use zero air as the FID 

burner’s air source for this verification. 

(4) Zero the FID analyzer using the 

zero gas used during emission testing. 

(5) Span the FID analyzer using a span 

gas that you use during emission testing. 

(6) Check the zero response of the FID 

analyzer using the zero gas used during 

emission testing. If the mean zero 

response of 30 seconds of sampled data 

is within ±0.5% of the span reference 

value used in paragraph (d)(5) of this 

section, then proceed to the next step; 

otherwise restart the procedure at 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(7) Check the analyzer response using 

the span gas that has the minimum 

concentration of O2 expected during 

testing. Record the mean response of 30 

seconds of stabilized sample data as 

xO2minHC. 

(8) Check the zero response of the FID 

analyzer using the zero gas used during 

emission testing. If the mean zero 

response of 30 seconds of stabilized 

sample data is within ±0.5% of the span 

reference value used in paragraph (d)(5) 

of this section, then proceed to the next 

step; otherwise restart the procedure at 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(9) Check the analyzer response using 

the span gas that has the maximum 

concentration of O2 expected during 

testing. Record the mean response of 30 

seconds of stabilized sample data as 

xO2maxHC. 

(10) Check the zero response of the 

FID analyzer using the zero gas used 

during emission testing. If the mean 

zero response of 30 seconds of stabilized 

sample data is within ±0.5% of the span 

reference value used in paragraph (d)(5) 

of this section, then proceed to the next 

step; otherwise restart the procedure at 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section. 

(11) Calculate the percent difference 

between xO2maxHC and its reference gas 

concentration. Calculate the percent 

difference between xO2minHC and its 

reference gas concentration. Determine 

the maximum percent difference of the 

two. This is the O2 interference. 

(12) If the O2 interference is within 

±1.5%, the FID passes the O2

interference verification; otherwise 

perform one or more of the following to 

address the deficiency: 

(i) Repeat the verification to 

determine if a mistake was made during 

the procedure. 

(ii) Select zero and span gases for 

emission testing that contain higher or 

lower O2 concentrations and repeat the 

verification. 

(iii) Adjust FID burner air, fuel, and 

sample flow rates. Note that if you 

adjust these flow rates on a THC FID to 

meet the O2 interference verification, 

you must re-verify RFCH4 according to 

§ 1065.360. Repeat the O2 interference 

verification after adjustment and RFCH4

verification. 

(iv) Repair or replace the FID and 

repeat the O2 interference verification. 

(v) Demonstrate that the deficiency 

does not adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission standards. 

54. Section 1065.365 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.365 Nonmethane cutter penetration 

fractions. 

(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a 

FID analyzer and a nonmethane cutter 

(NMC) to measure methane (CH4), 

determine the nonmethane cutter’s 

penetration fractions of methane, PFCH4, 

and ethane, PFC2H6. As detailed in this 

section, these penetration fractions may 

be determined as a combination of NMC 

penetration fractions and FID analyzer 

response factors, depending on your 

particular NMC and FID analyzer 

configuration. Perform this verification 

after installing the nonmethane cutter. 

Repeat this verification within 185 days 

of testing to verify that the catalytic 

activity of the cutter has not 

deteriorated. Note that because 

nonmethane cutters can deteriorate 

rapidly and without warning if they are 

operated outside of certain ranges of gas 

concentrations and outside of certain 

temperature ranges, good engineering 

judgment may dictate that you 

determine a nonmethane cutter’s 

penetration fractions more frequently. 

(b) Measurement principles. A 

nonmethane cutter is a heated catalyst 

that removes nonmethane hydrocarbons 

from an exhaust sample stream before 

the FID analyzer measures the 

remaining hydrocarbon concentration. 

An ideal nonmethane cutter would have 

a methane penetration fraction, PFCH4, 

of 1.000, and the penetration fraction for 

all other nonmethane hydrocarbons 

would be 0.000, as represented by 

PFC2H6. The emission calculations in 

§ 1065.660 use the measured values 

from this verification to account for less 

than ideal NMC performance. 

(c) System requirements. We do not 

limit NMC penetration fractions to a 

certain range. However, we recommend 

that you optimize a nonmethane cutter 

by adjusting its temperature to achieve 

a PFCH4 >0.85 and a PFC2H6 <0.02, as 

determined by paragraphs (d), (e), or (f) 

of this section, as applicable. If we use 

a nonmethane cutter for testing, it will 

meet this recommendation. If adjusting 

NMC temperature does not result in 

achieving both of these specifications 

simultaneously, we recommend that 

you replace the catalyst material. Use 

the most recently determined 

penetration values from this section to 

calculate HC emissions according to 

§ 1065.660 and § 1065.665 as applicable. 

(d) Procedure for a FID calibrated 

with the NMC. If your FID arrangement 

is such that a FID is always calibrated 

to measure CH4 with the NMC, then 

span that FID with the NMC cutter using 

a CH4 span gas, set the product of that 

FID’s CH4 response factor and CH4

penetration fraction, RFCH4 · PFCH4, 

equal to 1.0 for all emission 

calculations, and determine its ethane 

(C2H6) penetration fraction, PFC2H6 as 

follows: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16136 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(1) Select a CH4 gas mixture and a 

C2H6 analytical gas mixture and ensure 

that both mixtures meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. Select a 

CH4 concentration that you would use 

for spanning the FID during emission 

testing and select a C2H6 concentration 

that is typical of the peak NMHC 

concentration expected at the 

hydrocarbon standard or equal to THC 

analyzer’s span value. 

(2) Start, operate, and optimize the 

nonmethane cutter according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions, including 

any temperature optimization. 

(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer 

meets all the specifications of 

§ 1065.360. 

(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(5) Zero and span the FID with the 

cutter and use CH4 span gas to span the 

FID with the cutter. Note that you must 

span the FID on a C1 basis. For example, 

if your span gas has a CH4 reference 

value of 100 μmol/mol, the correct FID 

response to that span gas is 100 μmol/ 

mol because there is one carbon atom 

per CH4 molecule. 

(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas 

mixture upstream of the nonmethane 

cutter. 

(7) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the 

nonmethane cutter and to account for 

the analyzer’s response. 

(8) While the analyzer measures a 

stable concentration, record 30 seconds 

of sampled data. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of these data points. 

(9) Divide the mean by the reference 

value of C2H6, converted to a C1 basis. 

The result is the C2H6 penetration 

fraction, PFC2H6. Use this penetration 

fraction and the product of the CH4

response factor and CH4 penetration 

fraction, RFCH4 · PFCH4, set to 1.0 in 

emission calculations according to 

§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable. 

(e) Procedure for a FID calibrated with 

propane, bypassing the NMC. If you use 

a FID with an NMC that is calibrated 

with propane, C3H8, by bypassing the 

NMC, determine penetration fractions as 

follows: 

(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas 

mixtures that meet the specifications of 

§ 1065.750 with the CH4 concentration 

typical of its peak concentration 

expected at the hydrocarbon standard 

and the C2H6 concentration typical of 

the peak total hydrocarbon (THC) 

concentration expected at the 

hydrocarbon standard or the THC 

analyzer span value. 

(2) Start and operate the nonmethane 

cutter according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, including any temperature 

optimization. 

(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer 

meets all the specifications of 

§ 1065.360. 

(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(5) Zero and span the FID as you 

would during emission testing. Span the 

FID by bypassing the cutter and by 

using C3H8 span gas to span the FID. 

Note that you must span the FID on a 

C1 basis. For example, if your span gas 

has a propane reference value of 100 

μmol/mol, the correct FID response to 

that span gas is 300 μmol/mol because 

there are three carbon atoms per C3H8

molecule. 

(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas 

mixture upstream of the nonmethane 

cutter. 

(7) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the 

nonmethane cutter and to account for 

the analyzer’s response. 

(8) While the analyzer measures a 

stable concentration, record 30 seconds 

of sampled data. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of these data points. 

(9) Reroute the flow path to bypass 

the nonmethane cutter, introduce the 

C2H6 analytical gas mixture to the 

bypass, and repeat the steps in 

paragraphs (e)(7) through (8) of this 

section. 

(10) Divide the mean C2H6

concentration measured through the 

nonmethane cutter by the mean 

concentration measured after bypassing 

the nonmethane cutter. The result is the 

C2H6 penetration fraction, PFC2H6. Use 

this penetration fraction according to 

§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable. 

(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(e)(6) through (10) of this section, but 

with the CH4 analytical gas mixture 

instead of C2H6. The result will be the 

CH4 penetration fraction, PFCH4. Use 

this penetration fraction according to 

§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable. 

(f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with 

methane, bypassing the NMC. If you use 

a FID with an NMC that is calibrated 

with methane, CH4, by bypassing the 

NMC, determine penetration fractions as 

follows: 

(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas 

mixtures that meet the specifications of 

§ 1065.750, with the CH4 concentration 

typical of its peak concentration 

expected at the hydrocarbon standard 

and the C2H6 concentration typical of 

the peak total hydrocarbon (THC) 

concentration expected at the 

hydrocarbon standard or the THC 

analyzer span value. 

(2) Start and operate the nonmethane 

cutter according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions, including any temperature 

optimization. 

(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer 

meets all the specifications of 

§ 1065.360. 

(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(5) Zero and span the FID as you 

would during emission testing. Span the 

FID with CH4 span gas by bypassing the 

cutter. Note that you must span the FID 

on a C1 basis. For example, if your span 

gas has a methane reference value of 100 

μmol/mol, the correct FID response to 

that span gas is 100 μmol/mol because 

there is one carbon atom per CH4

molecule. 

(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas 

mixture upstream of the nonmethane 

cutter. 

(7) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the 

nonmethane cutter and to account for 

the analyzer’s response. 

(8) While the analyzer measures a 

stable concentration, record 30 seconds 

of sampled data. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of these data points. 

(9) Reroute the flow path to bypass 

the nonmethane cutter, introduce the 

C2H6 analytical gas mixture to the 

bypass, and repeat the steps in 

paragraphs (e)(7) and (8) of this section. 

(10) Divide the mean C2H6

concentration measured through the 

nonmethane cutter by the mean 

concentration measured after bypassing 

the nonmethane cutter. The result is the 

C2H6 penetration fraction, PFC2H6. Use 

this penetration fraction according to 

§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable. 

(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(e)(6) through (10) of this section, but 

with the CH4 analytical gas mixture 

instead of C2H6. The result will be the 

CH4 penetration fraction, PFCH4. Use 

this penetration fraction according to 

§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable. 

55. Section 1065.370 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e) and (g)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench 

verification. 

* * * * * 

(e) H2O quench verification 

procedure. Use the following method to 

determine H2O quench, or use good 

engineering judgment to develop a 

different protocol: 

(1) Use PTFE tubing to make 

necessary connections. 

(2) If the CLD has an operating mode 

in which it detects NO-only, as opposed 

to total NOX, operate the CLD in the NOonly operating mode. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16137 

(3) Measure an NO calibration span 

gas that meets the specifications of 

§ 1065.750 and is near the maximum 

concentration expected during testing. 

Record this concentration, xNOdry. 

(4) Humidify the NO span gas by 

bubbling it through distilled water in a 

sealed vessel. We recommend that you 

humidify the gas to the highest sample 

dewpoint that you estimate during 

emission sampling. 

(5) Downstream of the vessel, 

maintain the humidified gas 

temperature at least 5 °C above its 

dewpoint. 

(6) Introduce the humidified gas 

upstream of any sample dryer, if one is 

used during testing. 

(7) Measure the humidified gas 

dewpoint, Tdew, and pressure, ptotal, as 

close as possible to the inlet of the 

analyzer, or to the inlet of the sample 

dryer, if one is used. 

(8) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the transfer 

line and to account for analyzer 

response. 

(9) While the analyzer measures the 

sample’s concentration, record the 

analyzer’s output for 30 seconds. 

Calculate the arithmetic mean of these 

data. This mean is xNOmeas. 

(10) If your CLD is not equipped with 

a sample dryer, set xNOwet equal to 

xNOmeas from paragraph (e)(9) of this 

section. 

(11) If your CLD is equipped with a 

sample dryer, determine xNOwet from 

xNOmeas by correcting for the removed 

water according to § 1065.645. Use the 

amount of water at the sample dryer 

outlet as xH2Omeas for this calculation. 

Refer to § 1065.145(d)(2) and use the 

humidified gas dewpoint, Tdew, and 

pressure, ptotal, to determine xH2O. 

(12) Use xNOwet to calculate the 

quench according to § 1065.675. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) You may omit this verification if 

you can show by engineering analysis 

that for your NOX sampling system and 

your emission calculations procedures, 

the combined CO2 and H2O interference 

for your NOX CLD analyzer always 

affects your brake-specific NOX

emission results within no more than 

±1.0% of the applicable NOX standard. 

* * * * * 

56. Section 1065.372 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.372 NDUV analyzer HC and H2O 

interference verification. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) You may omit this verification if 

you can show by engineering analysis 

that for your NOX sampling system and 

your emission calculations procedures, 

the combined HC and H2O interference 

for your NOX NDUV analyzer always 

affects your brake-specific NOX

emission results by less than 0.5% of 

the applicable NOX standard. 

* * * * * 

57. Section 1065.376 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.376 Chiller NO2 penetration. 

(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a 

chiller to dry a sample upstream of a 

NOX measurement instrument, but you 

don’t use an NO2-to-NO converter 

upstream of the chiller, you must 

perform this verification for chiller NO2

penetration. Perform this verification 

after initial installation and after major 

maintenance. 

(b) Measurement principles. A chiller 

removes water, which can otherwise 

interfere with a NOX measurement. 

However, liquid water remaining in an 

improperly designed chiller can remove 

NO2 from the sample. If a chiller is used 

without an NO2-to-NO converter 

upstream, it could remove NO2 from the 

sample prior NOX measurement. 

(c) System requirements. A chiller 

must allow for measuring at least 95% 

of the total NO2 at the maximum 

expected concentration of NO2. 

(d) Procedure. Use the following 

procedure to verify chiller performance: 

(1) Instrument setup. Follow the 

analyzer and chiller manufacturers’

start-up and operating instructions. 

Adjust the analyzer and chiller as 

needed to optimize performance. 

(2) Equipment setup and data 

collection. (i) Zero and span the total 

NOX gas analyzer(s) as you would before 

emission testing. 

(ii) Select an NO2 calibration gas, 

balance gas of dry air, that has an NO2

concentration within ±5% of the 

maximum NO2 concentration expected 

during testing. 

(iii) Overflow this calibration gas at 

the gas sampling system’s probe or 

overflow fitting. Allow for stabilization 

of the total NOX response, accounting 

only for transport delays and instrument 

response. 

(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds 

of recorded total NOX data and record 

this value as xNOxref. 

(v) Stop flowing the NO2 calibration 

gas. 

(vi) Next saturate the sampling system 

by overflowing a dewpoint generator’s 

output, set at a dewpoint of 50 °C, to the 

gas sampling system’s probe or overflow 

fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator’s 

output through the sampling system and 

chiller for at least 10 minutes until the 

chiller is expected to be removing a 

constant rate of water. 

(vii) Immediately switch back to 

overflowing the NO2 calibration gas 

used to establish xNOxref. Allow for 

stabilization of the total NOX response, 

accounting only for transport delays and 

instrument response. Calculate the 

mean of 30 seconds of recorded total 

NOX data and record this value as 

xNOxmeas. 

(viii) Correct xNOxmeas to xNOxdry based 

upon the residual water vapor that 

passed through the chiller at the 

chiller’s outlet temperature and 

pressure. 

(3) Performance evaluation. If xNOxdry

is less than 95% of xNOxref, repair or 

replace the chiller. 

(e) Exceptions. The following 

exceptions apply: 

(1) You may omit this verification if 

you can show by engineering analysis 

that for your NOX sampling system and 

your emission calculations procedures, 

the chiller always affects your brakespecific NOX emission results by less 

than 0.5% of the applicable NOX

standard. 

(2) You may use a chiller that you 

determine does not meet this 

verification, as long as you try to correct 

the problem and the measurement 

deficiency does not adversely affect 

your ability to show that engines 

comply with all applicable emission 

standards. 

58. Section 1065.378 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.378 NO2-to-NO converter 

conversion verification. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Use the following 

procedure to verify the performance of 

a NO2-to-NO converter: 

(1) Instrument setup. Follow the 

analyzer and NO2-to-NO converter 

manufacturers’ start-up and operating 

instructions. Adjust the analyzer and 

converter as needed to optimize 

performance. 

(2) Equipment setup. Connect an 

ozonator’s inlet to a zero-air or oxygen 

source and connect its outlet to one port 

of a three-way tee fitting. Connect an 

NO span gas to another port, and 

connect the NO2-to-NO converter inlet 

to the last port. 

(3) Adjustments. Take the following 

steps to make adjustments: 

(i) With the NO2-to-NO converter in 

the bypass mode (i.e., NO mode) and the 

ozonator off, adjust the NO and zero-gas 

flows so the NO concentration at the 

analyzer is at the peak total NOX

concentration expected during testing. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) With the NO2-to-NO converter still 

in the bypass mode, turn on the 

ozonator and adjust the ozonator so the 

NO concentration measured by the 

analyzer decreases by the same amount 

as maximum concentration of NO2

expected during testing. This ensures 

that the ozonator is generating NO2 at 

the maximum concentration expected 

during testing. 

(4) Data collection. Maintain the 

ozonator adjustment in paragraph (d)(3) 

of this section, and keep the NOX

analyzer in the NO only mode (i.e., 

bypass the NO2-to-NO converter). 

(i) Allow for stabilization, accounting 

only for transport delays and instrument 

response. 

(ii) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds 

of sampled data from the analyzer and 

record this value as xNOxref. 

(iii) Switch the analyzer to the total 

NOX mode (that is, sample with the 

NO2-to-NO converter) and allow for 

stabilization, accounting only for 

transport delays and instrument 

response. 

(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds 

of sampled data from the analyzer and 

record this value as xNOxmeas. 

(v) Turn off the ozonator and allow for 

stabilization, accounting only for 

transport delays and instrument 

response. 

(vi) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds 

of sampled data from the analyzer and 

record this value as xNOxref. 

(5) Performance evaluation. Divide 

the quantity of (xNOxmeas ¥xNOref) by the 

quantity of (xNOref ¥xNOref). If the result 

is less than 95%, repair or replace the 

NO2-to-NO converter. 

(e) * * * 

(1) You may omit this verification if 

you can show by engineering analysis 

that for your NOX sampling system and 

your emission calculations procedures, 

the converter always affects your brakespecific NOX emission results by less 

than 0.5% of the applicable NOX

standard. 

* * * * * 

59. Section 1065.390 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9) and 

adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.390 PM balance verifications and 

weighing process verification. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(8) Subtract each buoyancy-corrected 

reference mass from its most recent 

previously recorded buoyancy-corrected 

mass. 

(9) You may discard reference PM 

sample media if you positively identify 

a cause for the media’s contamination, 

such as the media falling onto the floor. 

In this case, you do not have to include 

the contaminated reference media when 

determining compliance with paragraph 

(d)(10) of this section. 

(10) If any of the reference masses 

change by more than that allowed under 

this paragraph (d), invalidate all PM 

results that were determined between 

the two times that the reference masses 

were determined. If you discarded 

reference PM sample media according to 

paragraph (d)(9) of this section, you 

must still have at least one reference 

mass difference that meets the criteria in 

this paragraph (d). Otherwise, you must 

invalidate all PM results that were 

determined between the two times that 

the reference masses were determined. 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

60. Section 1065.405 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (e) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 1065.405 Test engine preparation and 

maintenance. 

* * * * * 

(b) Run the test engine, with all 

emission control systems operating, 

long enough to stabilize emission levels 

to appropriately apply deterioration 

factors. You must use the same 

stabilization procedures for all 

emission-data engines for which you 

apply the same deterioration factors so 

that all low-hour emission-data engines 

are consistent with the low-hour engine 

used to develop the deterioration factor. 

(1) Unless otherwise specified in the 

standard-setting part, you may consider 

emission levels stable without 

measurement if you accumulate 12 h of 

operation for a spark-ignition engine or 

125 h for a compression-ignition engine. 

(2) If the engine needs more or less 

operation to stabilize emission levels, 

record your reasons and the methods for 

doing this, and give us these records if 

we ask for them. 

(3) You may stabilize emissions from 

a catalytic exhaust aftertreatment device 

by operating it on an engine that is 

different from the test engine, but only 

where it is consistent with good 

engineering judgment. You may 

alternatively stabilize emissions from a 

catalytic exhaust aftertreatment device 

by operating it on an engine-exhaust 

simulator if it is allowed in the 

standard-setting part, or if we have 

issued prior guidance, or if we 

otherwise approve of the use of an 

engine-exhaust simulator in advance. 

This process of stabilizing emissions 

from a catalytic exhaust aftertreatment 

device is often called ‘‘degreening’’. Be 

sure to consider whether degreening 

under this paragraph (b)(3) will 

adversely affect your ability to develop 

and apply appropriate deterioration 

factors. 

* * * * * 

(e) If your engine will be used in a 

vehicle equipped with a canister for 

storing evaporative hydrocarbons for 

eventual combustion in the engine and 

the test sequence involves a cold-start or 

hot-start duty cycle, attach a canister to 

the engine before running an emission 

test. You may omit using an evaporative 

canister for any hot-stabilized duty 

cycles. You may request to omit using 

an evaporative canister during testing if 

you can show that it would not affect 

your ability to show compliance with 

the applicable emission standards. You 

do not have to accumulate engine 

operation before emission testing with 

an installed canister. Prior to an 

emission test, use the following steps to 

attach a canister to your engine: 

* * * * * 

61. The heading of subpart F is 

revised to read as follows: 

Subpart F—Performing an Emission 

Test Over Specified Duty Cycles 

62. Section 1065.501 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.501 Overview. 

(a) Use the procedures detailed in this 

subpart to measure engine emissions 

over a specified duty cycle. Refer to 

subpart J of this part for field test 

procedures that describe how to 

measure emissions during in-use engine 

operation. This section describes how 

to: 

(1) Map your engine, if applicable, by 

recording specified speed and torque 

data, as measured from the engine’s 

primary output shaft. 

(2) Transform normalized duty cycles 

into reference duty cycles for your 

engine by using an engine map. 

(3) Prepare your engine, equipment, 

and measurement instruments for an 

emission test. 

(4) Perform pre-test procedures to 

verify proper operation of certain 

equipment and analyzers. 

(5) Record pre-test data. 

(6) Start or restart the engine and 

sampling systems. 

(7) Sample emissions throughout the 

duty cycle. 

(8) Record post-test data. 

(9) Perform post-test procedures to 

verify proper operation of certain 

equipment and analyzers. 

(10) Weigh PM samples. 

(b) An emission test generally consists 

of measuring emissions and other 

parameters while an engine follows one 

or more duty cycles that are specified in 

the standard-setting part. There are two 

general types of duty cycles: 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16139 

(1) Transient cycles. Transient duty 

cycles are typically specified in the 

standard-setting part as a second-bysecond sequence of speed commands 

and torque (or power) commands. 

Operate an engine over a transient cycle 

such that the speed and torque of the 

engine’s primary output shaft follows 

the target values. Proportionally sample 

emissions and other parameters and use 

the calculations in subpart G of this part 

to calculate emissions. Start a transient 

test according to the standard-setting 

part, as follows: 

(i) A cold-start transient cycle where 

you start to measure emissions just 

before starting an engine that has not 

been warmed up. 

(ii) A hot-start transient cycle where 

you start to measure emissions just 

before starting a warmed-up engine. 

(iii) A hot running transient cycle 

where you start to measure emissions 

after an engine is started, warmed up, 

and running. 

(2) Steady-state cycles. Steady-state 

duty cycles are typically specified in the 

standard-setting part as a list of discrete 

operating points (modes or notches), 

where each operating point and has one 

value of a speed command and one 

value of a torque (or power) command. 

Ramped-modal cycles for steady-state 

testing also list test times for each mode 

and ramps of speed and torque to follow 

between modes. Start a steady-state 

cycle as a hot running test, where you 

start to measure emissions after an 

engine is started, warmed up and 

running. You may run a steady-state 

duty cycle as a discrete-mode cycle or 

a ramped-modal cycle, as follows: 

(i) Discrete-mode cycles. Before 

emission sampling, stabilize an engine 

at the first discrete mode. Sample 

emissions and other parameters for that 

mode and then stop emission sampling. 

Record mean values for that mode, and 

then stabilize the engine at the next 

mode. Continue to sample each mode 

discretely 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. Perform a ramped-modal 

cycle as a sequence of second-by-second 

speed commands and torque (or power) 

commands. Proportionally sample 

emissions and other parameters during 

the cycle and use the calculations in 

subpart G of this part to calculate 

emissions. 

(c) Other subparts in this part identify 

how to select and prepare an engine for 

testing (subpart E), how to perform the 

required engine service accumulation 

(subpart E), and how to calculate 

emission results (subpart G). 

(d) Subpart J of this part describes 

how to perform field testing. 

63. Section 1065.510 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.510 Engine mapping. 

(a) Applicability, scope, and 

frequency. An engine map is a data set 

that consists of a series of paired data 

points that represent the maximum 

brake torque versus engine speed, 

measured at the engine’s primary output 

shaft. Map your engine if the standardsetting part requires engine mapping to 

generate a duty cycle for your engine 

configuration. Map your engine while it 

is connected to a dynamometer or other 

device that can absorb work output from 

the engine’s primary output shaft 

according to § 1065.110. Configure any 

auxiliary work inputs and outputs such 

as hybrid, turbo-compounding, or 

thermoelectric systems to represent 

their in-use configurations, and use the 

same configuration for emission testing. 

See Figure 1 of § 1065.210. This may 

involve configuring initial states of 

charge and rates and times of auxiliarywork inputs and outputs. We 

recommend that you contact the 

Designated Compliance Officer before 

testing to determine how you should 

configure any auxiliary-work inputs and 

outputs. Use the most recent engine 

map to transform a normalized duty 

cycle from the standard-setting part to a 

reference duty cycle specific to your 

engine. Normalized duty cycles are 

specified in the standard-setting part. 

You may update an engine map at any 

time by repeating the engine-mapping 

procedure. You must map or re-map an 

engine before a test if any of the 

following apply: 

(1) If you have not performed an 

initial engine map. 

(2) If the atmospheric pressure near 

the engine’s air inlet is not within ±5 

kPa of the atmospheric pressure 

recorded at the time of the last engine 

map. 

(3) If the engine or emission-control 

system has undergone changes that 

might affect maximum torque 

performance. This includes changing 

the configuration of auxiliary work 

inputs and outputs. 

(4) If you capture an incomplete map 

on your first attempt or you do not 

complete a map within the specified 

time tolerance. You may repeat mapping 

as often as necessary to capture a 

complete map within the specified time. 

(b) Mapping variable-speed engines. 

Map variable-speed engines as follows: 

(1) Record the atmospheric pressure. 

(2) Warm up the engine by operating 

it. We recommend operating the engine 

at any speed and at approximately 75% 

of its expected maximum power. 

Continue the warm-up until the engine 

coolant, block, or head absolute 

temperature is within ±2% of its mean 

value for at least 2 min or until the 

engine thermostat controls engine 

temperature. 

(3) Operate the engine at its warm idle 

speed, within manufacturer tolerances, 

if specified. Apply a representative 

amount of torque to the engine’s 

primary output shaft if nonzero torque 

at idle speed is representative of its inuse operation. For example output 

torque at idle speed might normally 

occur if the engine is always coupled to 

a device such as a pump or hydrostatic 

drive that always applies some amount 

of nonzero torque at idle. Record at least 

30 values of speed and use the mean of 

those values as measured idle speed for 

cycle generation. 

(4) Set operator demand to maximum 

and control engine speed at (95 ±1)% of 

its warm idle speed for at least 15 

seconds. For engines with reference 

duty cycles whose lowest speed is 

greater than warm idle speed, you may 

start the map at (95 ±1)% of the lowest 

reference speed. 

(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 and 

the highest speed above maximum 

mapped power at which (50 to 75)% of 

maximum power occurs. If this highest 

speed is unsafe or unrepresentative (e.g., 

for ungoverned engines), use good 

engineering judgment to map up to the 

maximum safe speed or the maximum 

representative speed. 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 to 

the highest speed above maximum 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16140 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

power at which (50 to 75)% of 

maximum power occurs. If this highest 

speed is unsafe or unrepresentative (e.g., 

for ungoverned engines), use good 

engineering judgment to map up to the 

maximum safe speed or the maximum 

representative speed. 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. 

(c) Negative torque mapping. If your 

engine is subject to a reference duty 

cycle that specifies negative torque 

values (i.e., engine motoring), generate a 

motoring map by any of the following 

procedures: 

(1) Multiply the positive torques from 

your map by ¥40%. Use linear 

interpolation to determine intermediate 

values. 

(2) Map the amount of negative torque 

required to motor the engine by 

repeating paragraph (b) of this section 

with minimum operator demand. 

(3) Determine the amount of negative 

torque required to motor the engine at 

the following two points: at warm idle 

and at the highest speed above 

maximum power at which (50 to 75)% 

of maximum power occurs. If this 

highest speed is unsafe or 

unrepresentative (e.g., for ungoverned 

engines), use good engineering 

judgment to map up to the maximum 

safe speed or the maximum 

representative speed. Operate the engine 

at these two points at minimum 

operator demand. Use linear 

interpolation to determine intermediate 

values. 

(d) Mapping constant-speed engines. 

For constant-speed engines, generate a 

map as follows: 

(1) Record the atmospheric pressure. 

(2) Warm up the engine by operating 

it. We recommend operating the engine 

at approximately 75% of the engine’s 

expected maximum power. Continue 

the warm-up until the engine coolant, 

block, or head absolute temperature is 

within ±2% of its mean value for at least 

2 min or until the engine thermostat 

controls engine temperature. 

(3) You may operate the engine with 

a production constant-speed governor or 

simulate a constant-speed governor by 

controlling engine speed with an 

operator demand control system 

described in § 1065.110. Use either 

isochronous or speed-droop governor 

operation, as appropriate. 

(4) With the governor or simulated 

governor controlling speed using 

operator demand, operate the engine at 

no-load governed speed (at high speed, 

not low idle) for at least 15 seconds. 

(5) Record at 1 Hz the mean of 

feedback speed and torque. Use the 

dynamometer to increase torque at a 

constant rate. Unless the standardsetting part specifies otherwise, 

complete the map such that it takes (2 

to 4) min to sweep from no-load 

governed speed to the lowest speed 

below maximum mapped power at 

which the engine develops (85–95)% of 

maximum mapped power. You may 

map your engine to lower speeds. Stop 

recording after you complete the sweep. 

Use this series of speeds and torques to 

generate the power map as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(e) Power mapping. For all engines, 

create a power-versus-speed map by 

transforming torque and speed values to 

corresponding power values. Use the 

mean values from the recorded map 

data. Do not use any interpolated 

values. Multiply each torque by its 

corresponding speed and apply the 

appropriate conversion factors to arrive 

at units of power (kW). Interpolate 

intermediate power values between 

these power values, which were 

calculated from the recorded map data. 

(f) Measured and declared test speeds 

and torques. You may use test speeds 

and torques that you declare instead of 

measured speeds and torques if they 

meet the criteria in this paragraph (f). 

Otherwise, you must use speeds and 

torques derived from the engine map. 

(1) Measured speeds and torques. 

Determine the applicable speeds and 

torques according to § 1065.610: 

(i) Measured maximum test speed for 

variable-speed engines. 

(ii) Measured maximum test torque 

for constant-speed engines. 

(iii) Measured ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’

speeds for steady-state tests. 

(iv) Measured intermediate speed for 

steady-state tests. 

(2) Required declared speeds. You 

must declare the following speeds: 

(i) Warmed-up, low-idle speed for 

variable-speed engines. Declare this 

speed in a way that is representative of 

in-use operation. For example, if your 

engine is typically connected to an 

automatic transmission or a hydrostatic 

transmission, declare this speed at the 

idle speed at which your engine 

operates when the transmission is 

engaged. 

(ii) Warmed-up, no-load, high-idle 

speed for constant-speed engines. 

(3) Optional declared speeds. You 

may declare an enhanced idle speed 

according to § 1065.610. You may use a 

declared value for any of the following 

as long as the declared value is within 

(97.5 to 102.5)% of its corresponding 

measured value: 

(i) Measured maximum test speed for 

variable-speed engines. 

(ii) Measured intermediate speed for 

steady-state tests. 

(iii) Measured ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’

speeds for steady-state tests. 

(4) Declared torques. You may declare 

an enhanced idle torque according to 

§ 1065.610. You may declare maximum 

test torque as long as it is within (95 to 

100)% of the measured value. 

(g) Other mapping procedures. You 

may use other mapping procedures if 

you believe the procedures specified in 

this section are unsafe or 

unrepresentative for your engine. Any 

alternate techniques you use must 

satisfy the intent of the specified 

mapping procedures, which is to 

determine the maximum available 

torque at all engine speeds that occur 

during a duty cycle. Identify any 

deviations from this section’s mapping 

procedures when you submit data to us. 

64. Section 1065.512 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.512 Duty cycle generation. 

(a) Generate duty cycles according to 

this section if the standard-setting part 

requires engine mapping to generate a 

duty cycle for your engine 

configuration. The standard-setting part 

generally defines applicable duty cycles 

in a normalized format. A normalized 

duty cycle consists of a sequence of 

paired values for speed and torque or for 

speed and power. 

(b) Transform normalized values of 

speed, torque, and power using the 

following conventions: 

(1) Engine speed for variable-speed 

engines. For variable-speed engines, 

normalized speed may be expressed as 

a percentage between idle speed and 

maximum test speed, ƒntest, or speed may 

be expressed by referring to a defined 

speed by name, such as ‘‘warm idle,’’

‘‘intermediate speed,’’ or ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘B,’’ or 

‘‘C’’ speed. Section 1065.610 describes 

how to transform these normalized 

values into a sequence of reference 

speeds, ƒnref. Note that the cyclevalidation criteria in § 1065.514 allow 

an engine to govern itself at its in-use 

idle speed. This allowance permits you 

to test engines with enhanced-idle 

devices and to simulate the effects of 

transmissions such as automatic 

transmissions. For example, an 

enhanced-idle device might be an idle 

speed value that is normally 

commanded only under cold-start 

conditions to quickly warm up the 

engine and aftertreatment devices. 

(2) Engine torque for variable-speed 

engines. For variable-speed engines, 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16141 

normalized torque is expressed as a 

percentage of the mapped torque at the 

corresponding reference speed. Section 

1065.610 describes how to transform 

normalized torques into a sequence of 

reference torques, Tref. Section 1065.610 

also describes under what conditions 

you may command Tref greater than the 

reference torque you calculated from a 

normalized duty cycle. This provision 

permits you to command Tref values 

representing curb-idle transmission 

torque (CITT). For any negative torque 

commands, command minimum 

operator demand and use the 

dynamometer to control engine speed to 

the reference speed. Note that the cyclevalidation criteria in § 1065.514 allow 

an engine to pass cycle statistics for 

torque for any data points recorded 

during negative torque commands. Also, 

use the maximum recorded torque at the 

minimum mapped speed as the 

maximum torque for any reference 

speed at or below the minimum mapped 

speed. 

(3) Engine torque for constant-speed 

engines. For constant-speed engines, 

normalized torque is expressed as a 

percentage of maximum test torque, 

Ttest. Section 1065.610 describes how to 

transform normalized torques into a 

sequence of reference torques, Tref. 

Section 1065.610 also describes under 

what conditions you may command Tref

greater than 0 Nm when a normalized 

duty cycle specifies a 0% torque 

command. 

(4) Engine power. For all engines, 

normalized power is expressed as a 

percentage of mapped power at 

maximum test speed, ƒntest. Section 

1065.610 describes how to transform 

these normalized values into a sequence 

of reference powers, Pref. Convert these 

reference powers to reference speeds 

and torques for operator demand and 

dynamometer control. 

(c) For variable-speed engines, 

command reference speeds and torques 

sequentially to perform a duty cycle. 

Issue speed and torque commands at a 

frequency of at least 5 Hz for transient 

cycles and at least 1 Hz for steady-state 

cycles (i.e., discrete-mode and rampedmodal). Linearly interpolate between 

the 1 Hz reference values specified in 

the standard-setting part to determine 

more frequently issued reference speeds 

and torques. During an emission test, 

record the reference speeds and torques 

and the feedback speeds and torques at 

the same frequency. Use these recorded 

values to calculate cycle-validation 

statistics and total work. 

(d) For constant-speed engines, 

operate the engine with the same 

production governor you used to map 

the engine in § 1065.510 or simulate the 

in-use operation of a governor the same 

way you simulated it to map the engine 

in § 1065.510. Command reference 

torque values sequentially to perform a 

duty cycle. Issue torque commands at a 

frequency of at least 5 Hz for transient 

cycles and at least 1 Hz for steady-state 

cycles (i.e., discrete-mode, rampedmodal). Linearly interpolate between 

the 1 Hz reference values specified in 

the standard-setting part to determine 

more frequently issued reference torque 

values. During an emission test, record 

the reference torques and the feedback 

speeds and torques at the same 

frequency. Use these recorded values to 

calculate cycle-validation statistics and 

total work. 

(e) You may perform practice duty 

cycles with the test engine to optimize 

operator demand and dynamometer 

controls to meet the cycle-validation 

criteria specified in § 1065.514. 

65. Section 1065.514 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.514 Cycle-validation criteria for 

operation over specified duty cycles. 

Validate the execution of your duty 

cycle according to this section unless 

the standard-setting part specifies 

otherwise. This section describes how to 

determine if the engine’s operation 

during the test adequately matched the 

reference duty cycle. This section 

applies only to speed, torque, and 

power from the engine’s primary output 

shaft. Other work inputs and outputs are 

not subject to cycle-validation criteria. 

For any data required in this section, 

use the duty cycle reference and 

feedback values that you recorded 

during a test interval. 

(a) Testing performed by EPA. Our 

tests must meet the specifications of 

paragraph (g) of this section, unless we 

determine that failing to meet the 

specifications is related to engine 

performance rather than to 

shortcomings of the dynamometer or 

other laboratory equipment. 

(b) Testing performed by 

manufacturers. Emission tests that meet 

the specifications of paragraph (g) of 

this section satisfy the standard-setting 

part’s requirements for duty cycles. You 

may ask to use a dynamometer or other 

laboratory equipment that cannot meet 

those specifications. We will approve 

your request as long as using the 

alternate equipment does not adversely 

affect your ability to show compliance 

with the applicable emission standards. 

(c) Time-alignment. Because time lag 

between feedback values and the 

reference values may bias cyclevalidation results, you may advance or 

delay the entire sequence of feedback 

engine speed and/or torque pairs to 

synchronize them with the reference 

sequence. 

(d) Omitting additional points. 

Besides engine cranking, you may omit 

additional points from cycle-validation 

statistics as described in the following 

table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.514.—PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR OMITTING POINTS FROM DUTY-CYCLE REGRESSION STATISTICS

When operator demand is at its 

. . . you may omit . . . if . . . 

For reference duty cycles that are specified in terms of speed and torque (fnref, Tref) 

minimum .......................................... power and torque .......................... Tref < 0% (motoring). 

minimum .......................................... power and speed ........................... fnref = 0% (idle speed) and Tref = 0% (idle torque) and Tref ¥ (2% ·

Tmax mapped) < T < Tref + (2% · Tmax mapped). 

minimum .......................................... power and either torque or speed fn > fnref or T > Tref but not if fn > fnref and T > Tref. 

maximum ......................................... power and either torque or speed fn < fnref or T < Tref but not if fn < fnref and T < Tref. 

For reference duty cycles that are specified in terms of speed and power (fnref, Pref) 

minimum .......................................... power and torque .......................... Pref < 0% (motoring). 

minimum .......................................... power and speed ........................... fnref = 0% (idle speed) and Pref = 0% (idle power) and Pref ¥ (2% ·

Pmax mapped) < P < Pref + (2 % · Pmax mapped). 

minimum .......................................... power and either torque or speed fn > fnref or P > Pref but not if fn > fnref and P > Pref. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16142 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.514.—PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR OMITTING POINTS FROM DUTY-CYCLE REGRESSION STATISTICS—

Continued 

When operator demand is at its 

. . . you may omit . . . if . . . 

maximum ......................................... power and either torque or speed fn < fnref or P < Pref but not if fn < fref and P < Pref. 

(e) Statistical parameters. Use the 

remaining points to calculate regression 

statistics described in § 1065.602. 

Round calculated regression statistics to 

the same number of significant digits as 

the criteria to which they are compared. 

Refer to Table 2 of § 1065.514 for the 

default criteria and refer to the standardsetting part to determine if there are 

other criteria for your engine. Calculate 

the following regression statistics: 

(1) Slopes for feedback speed, a1fn, 

feedback torque, a1T, and feedback 

power a1P. 

(2) Intercepts for feedback speed, a0fn, 

feedback torque, a0T, and feedback 

power a0P. 

(3) Standard estimates of error for 

feedback speed, SEEfn, feedback torque, 

SEET, and feedback power SEEP. 

(4) Coefficients of determination for 

feedback speed, r2

fn, feedback torque, 

r2

T, and feedback power r2P. 

(f) Cycle-validation criteria. Unless 

the standard-setting part specifies 

otherwise, use the following criteria to 

validate a duty cycle: 

(1) For variable-speed engines, apply 

all the statistical criteria in Table 2 of 

this section. 

(2) For constant-speed engines, apply 

only the statistical criteria for torque in 

Table 2 of this section. 

TABLE 2 OF § 1065.514.—DEFAULT STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES

Parameter Speed Torque Power 

Slope, a1 ........................................ 0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................ 0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................ 0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030. 

Absolute value of intercept, |a0| ..... ≤ 10% of warm idle ...................... ≤ 2.0% of maximum mapped 

torque.

≤ 2.0% of maximum mapped 

power. 

Standard error of estimate, SEE ... ≤ 5.0% of maximum test speed ... ≤ 10% of maximum mapped 

torque.

≤ 10% of maximum mapped 

power. 

Coefficient of determination, r2 ...... ≥ 0.970 .......................................... ≥ 0.850 .......................................... ≥ 0.910. 

66. Section 1065.520 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (f)(1), (g) 

introductory text, and (g)(7)(iii) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures 

and pre-test data collection. 

* * * * * 

(b) Unless the standard-setting part 

specifies different tolerances, verify that 

ambient conditions are within the 

following tolerances before the test: 

(1) Ambient temperature of (20 to 30) 

°C. 

(2) Intake air temperature of (20 to 30) 

°C upstream of all engine components. 

(3) Atmospheric pressure of (80.000 to 

103.325) kPa and within ±5% of the 

value recorded at the time of the last 

engine map. 

(4) Dilution air conditions as specified 

in § 1065.140. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) Start the engine and use good 

engineering judgment to bring it to one 

of the following: 

(i) 100% torque at any speed above its 

peak-torque speed. 

(ii) 100% operator demand. 

* * * * * 

(g) After the last practice or 

preconditioning cycle before an 

emission test, verify the amount of 

nonmethane contamination in the 

exhaust and background HC sampling 

systems. You may omit verifying the 

contamination of a background HC 

sampling system if its contamination 

was verified within ten days before 

testing. For any NMHC measurement 

system that involves separately 

measuring methane and subtracting it 

from a THC measurement, verify the 

amount of HC contamination using only 

the THC analyzer response. There is no 

need to operate any separate methane 

analyzer for this verification. Perform 

this verification as follows: 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iii) 2 μmol/mol. 

* * * * * 

67. Section 1065.525 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.525 Engine starting, restarting, 

optional repeating of void discrete modes 

and shutdown. 

(a) Start the engine using one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Start the engine as recommended 

in the owners manual using a 

production starter motor or air-start 

system and either an adequately charged 

battery, a suitable power supply, or a 

suitable compressed air source. 

(2) Use the dynamometer to start the 

engine. To do this, motor the engine 

within ±25% of its typical in-use 

cranking speed. Stop cranking within 1 

second of starting the engine. 

(b) If the engine does not start after 15 

seconds of cranking, stop cranking and 

determine why the engine failed to start, 

unless the owners manual or the 

service-repair manual describes the 

longer cranking time as normal. 

(c) Respond to engine stalling with 

the following steps: 

(1) If the engine stalls during warmup before emission sampling begins, 

restart the engine and continue warmup. 

(2) If the engine stalls during 

preconditioning before emission 

sampling begins, restart the engine and 

restart the preconditioning sequence. 

(3) If the engine stalls at any time after 

emission sampling begins for a transient 

test or ramped-modal cycle test, the test 

is void. 

(4) Except as described in paragraph 

(d) of this section, void the test if the 

engine stalls at any time after emission 

sampling begins. 

(d) If emission sampling is interrupted 

during one of the modes of a discretemode test, you may void the results only 

for that individual mode and perform 

the following steps to continue the test: 

(i) If the engine has stalled, restart the 

engine. 

(ii) Use good engineering judgment to 

restart the test sequence using the 

appropriate steps in § 1065.530(b). 

(iii) Precondition the engine by 

operating at the previous mode for 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16143 

approximately the same amount of time 

it operated at that mode for the last 

emission measurement. 

(iv) Advance to the mode at which the 

engine stalled and continue with the 

duty cycle as specified in the standardsetting part. 

(v) Complete the remainder of the test 

according to the requirements in this 

subpart. 

(e) Shut down the engine according to 

the manufacturer’s specifications. 

68. Section 1065.530 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.530 Emission test sequence. 

(a) Time the start of testing as follows: 

(1) Perform one of the following if you 

precondition sampling systems as 

described in § 1065.520(f): 

(i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut 

down the engine. Unless the standardsetting part specifies that you may only 

perform a natural engine cooldown, you 

may perform a forced engine cooldown. 

Use good engineering judgment to set 

up systems to send cooling air across 

the engine, to send cool oil through the 

engine lubrication system, to remove 

heat from coolant through the engine 

cooling system, and to remove heat from 

any exhaust aftertreatment systems. In 

the case of a forced aftertreatment 

cooldown, good engineering judgment 

would indicate that you not start 

flowing cooling air until the 

aftertreatment system has cooled below 

its catalytic activation temperature. For 

platinum-group metal catalysts, this 

temperature is about 200 °C. Once the 

aftertreatment system has naturally 

cooled below its catalytic activation 

temperature, good engineering judgment 

would indicate that you use clean air 

with a temperature of at least 15 °C, and 

direct the air through the aftertreatment 

system in the normal direction of 

exhaust flow. Do not use any cooling 

procedure that results in 

unrepresentative emissions (see 

§ 1065.10(c)(1)). You may start a coldstart duty cycle when the temperatures 

of an engine’s lubricant, coolant, and 

aftertreatment systems are all between 

(20 and 30) °C. 

(ii) For hot-start emission 

measurements, shut down the engine. 

Start the hot-start duty cycle as 

specified in the standard-setting part. 

(iii) For testing that involves hotstabilized emission measurements, such 

as any steady-state testing, you may 

continue to operate the engine at 

maximum test speed and 100% torque 

if that is the first operating point. 

Otherwise, operate the engine at warm 

idle or the first operating point of the 

duty cycle. In any case, start the 

emission test within 10 min after you 

complete the preconditioning 

procedure. 

(2) If you do not precondition 

sampling systems, perform one of the 

following: 

(i) For cold-start duty cycles, prepare 

the engine according to paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For hot-start emission 

measurements, first operate the engine 

at any speed above peak-torque speed 

and at (65 to 85)% of maximum mapped 

power until either the engine coolant, 

block, or head absolute temperature is 

within ±2% of its mean value for at least 

2 min or until the engine thermostat 

controls engine temperature. Shut down 

the engine. Start the duty cycle within 

20 min of engine shutdown. 

(iii) For testing that involves hotstabilized emission measurements, bring 

the engine either to warm idle or the 

first operating point of the duty cycle. 

Start the test within 10 min of achieving 

temperature stability. Determine 

temperature stability either as the point 

at which the engine coolant, block, or 

head absolute temperature is within 

±2% of its mean value for at least 2 min, 

or as the point at which the engine 

thermostat controls engine temperature. 

(b) Take the following steps before 

emission sampling begins: 

(1) For batch sampling, connect clean 

storage media, such as evacuated bags or 

tare-weighed filters. 

(2) Start all measurement instruments 

according to the instrument 

manufacturer’s instructions and using 

good engineering judgment. 

(3) Start dilution systems, sample 

pumps, cooling fans, and the datacollection system. 

(4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat 

exchangers in the sampling system to 

within their operating temperature 

tolerances for a test. 

(5) Allow heated or cooled 

components such as sample lines, 

filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize 

at their operating temperatures. 

(6) Verify that there are no significant 

vacuum-side leaks according to 

§ 1065.345. 

(7) Adjust the sample flow rates to 

desired levels, using bypass flow, if 

desired. 

(8) Zero or re-zero any electronic 

integrating devices, before the start of 

any test interval. 

(9) Select gas analyzer ranges. You 

may automatically or manually switch 

gas analyzer ranges during a test only if 

switching is performed by changing the 

span over which the digital resolution of 

the instrument is applied. During a test 

you may not switch the gains of an 

analyzer’s analog operational 

amplifier(s). 

(10) Zero and span all continuous 

analyzers using NIST-traceable gases 

that meet the specifications of 

§ 1065.750. Span FID analyzers on a 

carbon number basis of one (1), C1. For 

example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 

concentration 200 μmol/mol, span the 

FID to respond with a value of 600 

μmol/mol. Span FID analyzers 

consistently with the determination of 

their respective response factors, RF, 

and penetration fractions, PF, according 

to § 1065.365. 

(11) We recommend that you verify 

gas analyzer responses after zeroing and 

spanning by sampling a calibration gas 

that has a concentration near one-half of 

the span gas concentration. Based on the 

results and good engineering judgment, 

you may decide whether or not to rezero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas 

analyzer before starting a test. 

(12) If you correct for dilution air 

background concentrations of engine 

exhaust constituents, start measuring 

and recording background 

concentrations. 

(13) Drain any condensate from the 

intake air system and close any intake 

air condensate drains that are not 

normally open during in-use operation. 

(c) Start testing as follows: 

(1) If an engine is already running and 

warmed up, and starting is not part of 

the duty cycle, perform the following for 

the various duty cycles: 

(i) Transient and steady-state rampedmodal cycles. Simultaneously start 

running the duty cycle, sampling 

exhaust gases, recording data, and 

integrating measured values. 

(ii) Steady-state discrete-mode cycles. 

Control the engine operation to match 

the first mode in the test cycle. This will 

require controlling engine speed and 

load, engine load, or other operator 

demand settings, as specified in the 

standard-setting part. Follow the 

instructions in the standard-setting part 

to determine how long to stabilize 

engine operation at each mode, how 

long to sample emissions at each mode, 

and how to transition between modes. 

(2) If engine starting is part of the duty 

cycle, initiate data logging, sampling of 

exhaust gases, and integrating measured 

values before attempting to start the 

engine. Initiate the duty cycle when the 

engine starts. 

(d) At the end of each test interval, 

continue to operate all sampling and 

dilution systems to allow the sampling 

system’s response time to elapse. Then 

stop all sampling and recording, 

including the recording of background 

samples. Finally, stop any integrating 

devices and indicate the end of the duty 

cycle in the recorded data. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16144 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(e) Shut down the engine if you have 

completed testing or if it is part of the 

duty cycle. 

(f) If testing involves another duty 

cycle after a soak period with the engine 

off, start a timer when the engine shuts 

down, and repeat the steps in 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 

as needed. 

(g) Take the following steps after 

emission sampling is complete: 

(1) For any proportional batch sample, 

such as a bag sample or PM sample, 

verify that proportional sampling was 

maintained according to § 1065.545. 

Void any samples that did not maintain 

proportional sampling according to 

§ 1065.545. 

(2) Place any used PM samples into 

covered or sealed containers and return 

them to the PM-stabilization 

environment. Follow the PM sample 

post-conditioning and total weighing 

procedures in § 1065.595. 

(3) As soon as practical after the duty 

cycle is complete but no later than 30 

minutes after the duty cycle is complete, 

perform the following: 

(i) Zero and span all batch gas 

analyzers. 

(ii) Analyze any gaseous batch 

samples, including background samples. 

(4) After quantifying exhaust gases, 

verify drift as follows: 

(i) For batch and continuous gas 

anlyzers, record the mean analyzer 

value after stabilizing a zero gas to the 

analyzer. Stabilization may include time 

to purge the analyzer of any sample gas, 

plus any additional time to account for 

analyzer response. 

(ii) Record the mean analyzer value 

after stabilizing the span gas to the 

analyzer. Stabilization may include time 

to purge the analyzer of any sample gas, 

plus any additional time to account for 

analyzer response. 

(iii) Use these data to validate and 

correct for drift as described in 

§ 1065.550. 

(h) Unless the standard-setting part 

specifies otherwise, determine whether 

or not the test meets the cycle-validation 

criteria in § 1065.514. 

(1) If the criteria void the test, you 

may retest using the same denormalized 

duty cycle, or you may re-map the 

engine, denormalize the reference duty 

cycle based on the new map and retest 

the engine using the new denormalized 

duty cycle. 

(2) If the criteria void the test for a 

constant-speed engine only during 

commands of maximum test torque, you 

may do the following: 

(i) Determine the first and last 

feedback speeds at which maximum test 

torque was commanded. 

(ii) If the last speed is greater than or 

equal to 90% of the first speed, the test 

is void. You may retest using the same 

denormalized duty cycle, or you may remap the engine, denormalize the 

reference duty cycle based on the new 

map and retest the engine using the new 

denormalized duty cycle. 

(iii) If the last speed is less than 90% 

of the first speed, reduce maximum test 

torque by 5%, and proceed as follows: 

(A) Denormalize the entire duty cycle 

based on the reduced maximum test 

torque according to § 1065.512. 

(B) Retest the engine using the 

denormalized test cycle that is based on 

the reduced maximum test torque. 

(C) If your engine still fails the cycle 

criteria, reduce the maximum test 

torque by another 5% of the original 

maximum test torque. 

(D) If your engine fails after repeating 

this procedure four times, such that 

your engine still fails after you have 

reduced the maximum test torque by 

20% of the original maximum test 

torque, notify us and we will consider 

specifying a more appropriate duty 

cycle for your engine under the 

provisions of § 1065.10(c). 

69. Section 1065.545 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.545 Validation of proportional flow 

control for batch sampling. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Positive-displacement pump 

option. You may use the 1 Hz (or more 

frequently) recorded pump-inlet 

conditions. Demonstrate that the flow 

density at the pump inlet was constant 

within ±2.5% of the mean or target 

density over each test interval. For a 

CVS pump, you may demonstrate this 

by showing that the absolute 

temperature at the pump inlet was 

constant within ±2% of the mean or 

target absolute temperature over each 

test interval. 

* * * * * 

70. Section 1065.550 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.550 Gas analyzer range validation, 

drift validation, and drift correction. 

(a) Range validation. If an analyzer 

operated above 100% of its range at any 

time during the test, perform the 

following steps: 

(1) For batch sampling, re-analyze the 

sample using the lowest analyzer range 

that results in a maximum instrument 

response below 100%. Report the result 

from the lowest range from which the 

analyzer operates below 100% of its 

range. 

(2) For continuous sampling, repeat 

the entire test using the next higher 

analyzer range. If the analyzer again 

operates above 100% of its range, repeat 

the test using the next higher range. 

Continue to repeat the test until the 

analyzer always operates at less than 

100% of its range. 

(b) Drift validation and drift 

correction. Calculate two sets of brakespecific emission results. 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 brakespecific emission results as follows: 

(1) If the difference between the 

corrected and uncorrected brakespecific emissions are within ±4% of the 

uncorrected results or within ±4% of the 

applicable standard for all regulated 

emissions, the test is validated for drift. 

If not, the entire test is void. 

(2) If the test is validated for drift, you 

must use only the drift-corrected 

emission results when reporting 

emissions, unless you demonstrate to us 

that using the drift-corrected results 

adversely affects your ability to 

demonstrate that your engine complies 

with the applicable standards. 

71. Section 1065.590 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j)(9) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.590 PM sample preconditioning and 

tare weighing. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(9) Once weighing is completed, 

follow the instructions given in 

paragraphs (g) through (i) of this section. 

72. Section 1065.595 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.595 PM sample post-conditioning 

and total weighing. 

* * * * * 

(e) To stabilize PM samples, place 

them in one or more containers that are 

open to the PM-stabilization 

environment, which is described in 

§ 1065.190. A PM sample is stabilized as 

long as it has been in the PMstabilization environment for one of the 

following durations, during which the 

stabilization environment has been 

within the specifications of § 1065.190: 

(1) If you expect that a filter’s total 

surface concentration of PM will be 

greater than about 0.5 μg/mm2, expose 

the filter to the stabilization 

environment for at least 60 minutes 

before weighing. 

(2) If you expect that a filter’s total 

surface concentration of PM will be less 

than about 0.5 μg/mm2, expose the filter 

to the stabilization environment for at 

least 30 minutes before weighing. 

(3) If you are unsure of a filter s total 

surface concentration of PM, expose the 

filter to the stabilization environment 

for at least 60 minutes before weighing. 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16145 

(4) Note that 0.5 μg/mm2 is 

approximately equal to 567 μg of net PM 

mass on a PM filter with a 38 mm 

diameter stain area. It is also an 

approximate surface concentration at 

0.07 g/kW·hr for a hot-start test with 

compression-ignition engines tested 

according to 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, 

or 50 mg/mile for a light-duty vehicle 

tested according to 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart B. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

73. Section 1065.610 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) before the 

equation to read as follows: 

§ 1065.610 Duty cycle generation. 

* * * * * 

(b) Maximum test torque, Ttest. For 

constant-speed engines, determine the 

measured Ttest from the power-versusspeed map, generated according to 

§ 1065.510, as follows: 

(1) Based on the map, determine 

maximum power, Pmax, and the speed at 

which maximum power occurs, fnPmax. 

Divide every recorded power by Pmax

and divide every recorded speed by 

fnPmax. The result is a normalized powerversus-speed map. Your measured Ttest

is the torque at which the sum of the 

squares of normalized speed and power 

is maximum, as follows: 

74. Section 1065.642 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising the reference ‘‘Eq. 

1065.640–4’’ to read ‘‘Eq. 1065.640–5’’. 

b. By revising the reference ‘‘Eq. 

1065.640–5’’ in paragraph (b) to read 

‘‘Eq. 1065.640–6’’. 

c. By revising the reference ‘‘Eq. 

1065.640–6’’ in paragraph (b) to read 

‘‘Eq. 1065.640–7’’. 

75. Section 1065.650 is amended by 

revising the reference to ‘‘1065.650–5’’

in paragraph (e)(4) to be ‘‘Eq. 1065.650–

5’’ and adding Equation 1065.650–5 

after Equation 1065.650–4 in paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.650 Emission calculations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

Where: 

Dt = 1/frecord Eq. 1065.650–5 

* * * * * 

76. Section 1065.655 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (d)(1)(ii) 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, 

xH2O, fraction of dilution air in diluted 

exhaust, xdil, and the amount of 

products on a C1 basis per dry mole of 

dry measured flow, xCproddry. For each 

emission concentration, x, and amount 

of water, xH2O, you must determine their 

completely dry concentrations, xdry and 

xH2Odry. You must also use your fuel’s 

atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, and 

oxygen-to-carbon ratio, b. For your fuel, 

you may measure a and b or you may 

use the default values in Table 1 of 

§ 1065.650. Use the following steps to 

complete a chemical balance: 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) During emission testing you route 

open crankcase flow to the exhaust 

according to § 1065.130(i). 

* * * * * 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

77. Section 1065.701 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory text 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.701 General requirements for test 

fuels. 

* * * * * 

(c) Fuels not specified in this subpart. 

If you produce engines that run on a 

type of fuel (or mixture of fuels) that we 

do not specify in this subpart, you must 

get our written approval to establish the 

appropriate test fuel. See the standardsetting part for provisions related to 

fuels not specified in this subpart. We 

will generally allow you to use the fuel 

if you show us all the following things 

are true: 

(1) Show that this type of fuel is 

commercially available. 

(2) Show that your engines will use 

only the designated fuel in service. 

(3) Show that operating the engines 

on the fuel we specify would 

unrepresentatively increase emissions 

or decrease durability. 

* * * * * 

(e) 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 procedure 1

Diesel ................................................. Light distillate and light blends with residual ................................................. ASTM D975–04c 

Middle distillate .............................................................................................. ASTM D6751–03a 

Biodiesel (B100) ............................................................................................ ASTM D6985–04a 

Intermediate and residual fuel ............ All ................................................................................................................... See § 1065.705 

Gasoline ............................................. Motor vehicle gasoline ................................................................................... ASTM D4814–04b 

Minor oxygenated gasoline blends ................................................................ ASTM D4814–04b 

Alcohol ................................................ Ethanol (Ed75–85) ......................................................................................... ASTM D5798–99 

Methanol (M70–M85) ..................................................................................... ASTM D5797–96 

Aviation fuel ........................................ Aviation gasoline ............................................................................................ ASTM D910–04a 

Gas turbine .................................................................................................... ASTM D1655–04a 

Jet B wide cut ................................................................................................ ASTM D6615–04a 

Gas turbine fuel .................................. General .......................................................................................................... ASTM D2880–03 

1ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. 

78. Section 1065.703 is amended by 

revising Table 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.703 Distillate diesel fuel. 

* * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16146 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 D 613–03b 

Distillation range ............................................................. °C.

Initial boiling point .................................................... ..................... 171–204 171–204 171–204 ASTM D 86–04b 

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 D 287–92 

Total sulfur ............................................................... mg/kg .......... 7–15 300–500 2000–4000 ASTM D 2622–03 

Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall be paraffins, 

naphthalenes, and olefins).

g/kg ............. 100 100 100 ASTM D 5186–03 

Flashpoint, min ............................................................... °C ................ 54 54 54 ASTM D 93–02a 

Kinematic Viscosity ......................................................... cSt ............... 2.0–3.2 2.0–3.2 2.0–3.2 ASTM D 445–04 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

79. Section 1065.705 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.705 Residual and intermediate 

residual fuel. 

This section describes the 

specifications for fuels meeting the 

definition of residual fuel in 40 CFR 

80.2, including fuels marketed as 

intermediate fuel. Residual fuels for 

service accumulation and any testing 

must meet the following specifications: 

(a) The fuel must be a commercially 

available fuel that is representative of 

the fuel that will be used by the engine 

in actual use. 

(b) The fuel must meet the 

specifications for one of the categories 

in the following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.705.—SERVICE ACCUMULATION AND TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR RESIDUAL FUEL

Characteristic Unit 

Category ISO–F–

Test method reference 1

RMA 

30 

RMB 

30 

RMD 

80 

RME 

180 

RMF 

180 

RMG 

380 

RMH 

380 

RMK 

380 

RMH 

700 

RMK 

700 

Density at 15 °C, max kg/m3 .......... 960.0 975.0 980.0 991.0 991.0 1010.0 991.0 1010.0 ISO 3675 or ISO 12185: 

1996/Cor 1:2001 (see 

also ISO 8217:2005(E) 

7.1). 

Kinematic viscosity at 

50 °C, max.

cSt .............. 30.0 80.0 180.0 380.0 700.0 ISO 3104:1994/Cor 

1:1997. 

Flash point, min ......... °C ............... 60 60 60 60 60 ISO 2719 (see also ISO 

8217:2005(E) 7.2). 

Pour point (upper) 

Winter quality, max.

°C ............... 0 24 30 30 30 30 ISO 3016. 

Summer quality, max .................... 6 24 30 30 30 30 ISO 3016. 

Carbon residue, max (kg/kg)% ..... 10 14 15 20 18 22 22 ISO 10370:1993/Cor 

1:1996. 

Ash, max ................... (kg/kg)% ..... 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 ISO 6245. 

Water, max ................ (m3/m3)% ... 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ISO 3733. 

Sulfur, max ................ (kg/kg)% ..... 3.50 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 ISO 8754 or ISO 14596: 

1998/Cor 1:1999 (see 

also ISO 8217:2005(E) 

7.3). 

Vanadium, max ......... mg/kg ......... 150 350 200 500 300 600 600 ISO 14597 or IP 501 or IP 

470 (see also ISO 

8217:2005(E) 7.8). 

Total sediment potential, max.(kg/kg)% ..... 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ISO 10307–2 (see also 

ISO 8217:2005(E) 7.6). 

Aluminium plus silicon, max.mg/kg ......... 80 80 80 80 80 ISO 10478 or IP 501 or IP 

470 (see also ISO 

8217:2005(E) 7.9). 

Used lubricating oil 

(ULO), max.

mg/kg ......... Fuel shall be free of ULO. We consider a fuel to be free of ULO if one or more of the elements 

zinc, phosphorus, or calcium is at or below the specified limits. We consider a fuel to contain 

ULO if all three elements exceed the specified limits. 

Zinc ............................ .................... 15 IP 501 or IP 470 (see ISO 

8217:2005(E) 7.7). 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16147 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.705.—SERVICE ACCUMULATION AND TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR RESIDUAL FUEL—Continued 

Characteristic Unit 

Category ISO–F–

Test method reference 1

RMA 

30 

RMB 

30 

RMD 

80 

RME 

180 

RMF 

180 

RMG 

380 

RMH 

380 

RMK 

380 

RMH 

700 

RMK 

700 

Phosphorus ............... .................... 15 IP 501 or IP 500 (see ISO 

8217:2005(E) 7.7). 

Calcium ...................... .................... 30 IP 501 or IP 470 (see ISO 

8217:2005(E) 7.7). 

1 ISO procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

80. Section 1065.710 is amended by 

revising Table 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.710 Gasoline. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.710.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE

Item Units General testing Low-temperature testing Reference procedure 1

Distillation Range .............. °C.

Initial boiling point ...... ........................................... 24–35 2 ............................ 24–36 ................................ ASTM D 86–04b 

10% point ................... ........................................... 49–57 ................................ 37–48.

50% point ................... ........................................... 93–110 .............................. 82–101 ..............................

90% point ................... ........................................... 149–163 ............................ 158–174 ............................

End point .................... ........................................... Maximum, 213 .................. Maximum, 212 ..................

Hydrocarbon composition: m 3/m 3.

Olefins ............................... ........................................... Maximum, 0.10 ................. Maximum 0.175 ................ ASTM D 1319–03 

Aromatics ........................... ........................................... Maximum, 0.35 ................. Maximum, 0.304.

Saturates ........................... ........................................... Remainder ........................ Remainder.

Lead (organics) ................. g/liter ................................. Maximum, 0.013 ............... Maximum, 0.013 ............... ASTM D 3237–02 

Phosphorous ..................... g/liter ................................. Maximum, 0.0013 ............. Maximum, 0.005 ............... ASTM D 3231–02 

Total sulfur ......................... mg/kg ................................ Maximum, 80 .................... Maximum, 80 .................... ASTM D 1266–98 

Volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure).kPa ................................... 60.0–63.42 3 ...................... 77.2–81.4 .......................... ASTM D 323–99a 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 2For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa and the specified initial boiling point range is (23.9 

to 40.6 °C. 3For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa. 

81. Section 1065.715 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.715 Natural gas. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, natural gas for testing 

must meet the specifications in the 

following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.715.—TEST FUEL

SPECIFICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS

Item Value 1

(mol/mol) 

Methane, CH4 .................. Minimum, 0.87. 

Ethane, C2H6 ................... Maximum, 0.055. 

Propane, C3H8 ................. Maximum, 0.012. 

Butane, C4H10 .................. Maximum, 

0.0035. 

Pentane, C5H12 ................ Maximum, 

0.0013. 

C6 and higher ................... Maximum, 0.001. 

Oxygen ............................. Maximum, 0.001. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.715.—TEST FUEL

SPECIFICATIONS FOR NATURAL

GAS—Continued 

Item Value 1

(mol/mol) 

Inert gases (sum of CO2

and N2).

Maximum, 0.051. 

1All parameters are based on the reference 

procedures in ASTM D 1945–03 (incorporated 

by reference in § 1065.1010). See 

§ 1065.710(d) for other allowed procedures. 

(b) In certain cases you may use test 

fuel not meeting the specifications in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(1) You may use fuel that your in-use 

engines normally use, such as pipeline 

natural gas. 

(2) You may use fuel meeting 

alternate specifications if the standardsetting part allows it. 

(3) You may ask for approval to use 

fuel that does not meet the 

specifications in paragraph (a) of this 

section, but only if using the fuel would 

not adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards. 

(c) When we conduct testing using 

natural gas, we will use fuel that meets 

the specifications in paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(d) At ambient conditions, natural gas 

must have a distinctive odor detectable 

down to a concentration in air not more 

than one-fifth the lower flammable 

limit. 

82. Section 1065.720 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.720 Liquefied petroleum gas. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, liquefied petroleum 

gas for testing must meet the 

specifications in the following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.720.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Item Value Reference Procedure 1

Propane, C3H8 ................................................................................................ Minimum, 0.85 m3/m3 ........................ ASTM D 2163–91 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16148 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.720.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS—Continued 

Item Value Reference Procedure 1

Vapor pressure at 38°C .................................................................................. Maximum, 1400 kPa .......................... ASTM D 1267–02 or 2598–

022

Volatility residue (evaporated temperature, 35 °C) ........................................ Maximum, ¥38°C ............................. ASTM D 1837–02a 

Butanes ........................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.05 m3/m3 ....................... ASTM D 2163–91 

Butenes ........................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.02 m3/m3 ....................... ASTM D 2163–91 

Pentenes and heavier .................................................................................... Maximum, 0.005 m3/m3 ..................... ASTM D 2163–91 

Propene .......................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.1 m3/m3 ......................... ASTM D 2163–91 

Residual matter (residue on evap. of 100) ml oil stain observ.) .................... Maximum, 0.05 ml pass3 ................... ASTM D 2158–04 

Corrosion, copper strip ................................................................................... Maximum, No. 1 ................................ ASTM D 1838–03 

Sulfur .............................................................................................................. Maximum, 80 mg/kg .......................... ASTM D 2784–98 

Moisture content ............................................................................................. pass ................................................... ASTM D 2713–91 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 2 If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D 1267–02. 3The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes. 

(b) In certain cases you may use test 

fuel not meeting the specifications in 

paragraph (a) of this section, as follows: 

(1) You may use fuel that your in-use 

engines normally use, such as 

commercial-quality liquefied petroleum 

gas. 

(2) You may use fuel meeting 

alternate specifications if the standardsetting part allows it. 

(3) You may ask for approval to use 

fuel that does not meet the 

specifications in paragraph (a) of this 

section, but only if using the fuel would 

not adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards. 

(c) When we conduct testing using 

liquefied petroleum gas, we will use 

fuel that meets the specifications in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(d) At ambient conditions, liquefied 

petroleum gas must have a distinctive 

odor detectable down to a concentration 

in air not more than one-fifth the lower 

flammable limit. 

83. Section 1065.750 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and 

(a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.750 Analytical Gases. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) Use the following gases with a FID 

analyzer: 

(i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated 

H2 concentration of (0.400 ±0.004) mol/ 

mol, balance He, and a stated total 

hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 

μmol/mol or less. 

(ii) FID burner air. Use FID burner air 

that meets the specifications of purified 

air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

For field testing, you may use ambient 

air. 

(iii) FID zero gas. Zero flameionization detectors with purified gas 

that meets the specifications in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except 

that the purified gas O2 concentration 

may be any value. Note that FID zero 

balance gases may be any combination 

of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 

recommend FID analyzer zero gases that 

contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. 

(iv) FID propane span gas. Span and 

calibrate THC FID with span 

concentrations of propane, C3H8. 

Calibrate on a carbon number basis of 

one (C1). For example, if you use a C3H8

span gas of concentration 200 μmol/mol, 

span a FID to respond with a value of 

600 μmol/mol. Note that FID span 

balance gases may be any combination 

of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 

recommend FID analyzer span gases 

that contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. If the expected 

exhaust O2 concentration is zero, we 

recommend using a balance gas of 

purified nitrogen. 

(v) FID methane span gas. If you 

always span and calibrate a CH4 FID 

with a nonmethane cutter, then span 

and calibrate the FID with span 

concentrations of methane, CH4. 

Calibrate on a carbon number basis of 

one (C1). For example, if you use a CH4

span gas of concentration 200 μmol/mol, 

span a FID to respond with a value of 

200 μmol/mol. Note that FID span 

balance gases may be any combination 

of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 

recommend FID analyzer span gases 

that contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. If the expected 

exhaust O2 concentration is zero, we 

recommend using a balance gas of 

purified nitrogen. 

(3) Use the following gas mixtures, 

with gases traceable within ±1.0% of the 

NIST accepted value or other gas 

standards we approve: 

(i) CH4, balance purified synthetic air 

and/or N2 (as applicable). 

(ii) C2H6, balance purified synthetic 

air and/or N2 (as applicable). 

(iii) C3H8, balance purified synthetic 

air and/or N2 (as applicable). 

(iv) CO, balance purified N2. 

(v) CO2, balance purified N2. 

(vi) NO, balance purified N2. 

(vii) NO2, balance purified synthetic 

air. 

(viii) O2, balance purified N2. 

(ix) C3H8, CO, CO2, NO, balance 

purified N2. 

(x) C3H8, CH4, CO, CO2, NO, balance 

purified N2. 

(4) You may use gases for species 

other than those listed in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section (such as methanol 

in air, which you may use to determine 

response factors), as long as they are 

traceable to within ±1.0% of the NIST 

accepted value or other similar 

standards we approve, and meet the 

stability requirements of paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

84. Section 1065.805 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.805 Sampling system. 

(a) Proportionally dilute engine 

exhaust, and use batch sampling to 

collect flow-weighted dilute samples of 

the applicable alcohols and carbonyls at 

a constant flow rate. You may not use 

raw sampling for alcohols and 

carbonyls. 

* * * * * 

Subpart J—[Amended] 

85. Section 1065.901 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.901 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Laboratory testing. You may use 

PEMS for any testing in a laboratory or 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16149 

similar environment without restriction 

or prior approval if the PEMS meets all 

the specifications for the laboratory 

equipment that it replaces. You may 

also use PEMS for any testing in a 

laboratory or similar environment if we 

approve it in advance, subject to the 

following provisions: 

* * * * * 

86. Section 1065.905 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.905 General provisions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Laboratory testing using PEMS. 

You may use PEMS for testing in a 

laboratory as described in § 1065.901(b). 

Use the following procedures and 

specifications when using PEMS for 

laboratory testing: 

* * * * * 

87. Section 1065.910 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.910 PEMS auxiliary equipment for 

field testing. 

For field testing you may use various 

types of auxiliary equipment to attach 

PEMS to a vehicle or engine and to 

power PEMS. 

(a) When you use PEMS, you may 

route engine intake air or exhaust 

through a flow meter. Route the engine 

intake air or exhaust as follows: 

(1) Flexible connections. Use short 

flexible connectors where necessary. 

(i) You may use flexible connectors to 

enlarge or reduce the pipe diameters to 

match that of your test equipment. 

(ii) Use flexible connectors that do not 

exceed a length of three times their 

largest inside diameter. 

(iii) Use four-ply silicone-fiberglass 

fabric with a temperature rating of at 

least 315 °C for flexible connectors. You 

may use connectors with a spring-steel 

wire helix for support and you may use 

NomexTM coverings or linings for 

durability. You may also use any other 

nonreactive material with equivalent 

permeation-resistance and durability, as 

long as it seals tightly. 

(iv) Use stainless-steel hose clamps to 

seal flexible connectors, or use clamps 

that seal equivalently. 

(v) You may use additional flexible 

connectors to connect to flow meters. 

(2) Tubing. Use rigid 300 series 

stainless steel tubing to connect 

between flexible connectors. Tubing 

may be straight or bent to accommodate 

vehicle geometry. You may use T or Y 

fittings made of 300 series stainless steel 

tubing to join multiple connections, or 

you may cap or plug redundant flow 

paths if the engine manufacturer 

recommends it. 

(3) Flow restriction. Use flowmeters, 

connectors, and tubing that do not 

increase flow restriction so much that it 

exceeds the manufacturer s maximum 

specified value. You may verify this at 

the maximum exhaust flow rate by 

measuring pressure at the manufacturerspecified location with your system 

connected. You may also perform an 

engineering analysis to verify an 

acceptable configuration, taking into 

account the maximum exhaust flow rate 

expected, the field test system s flexible 

connectors, and the tubing s 

characteristics for pressure drops versus 

flow. 

(b) For vehicles or other motive 

equipment, we recommend installing 

PEMS in the same location where a 

passenger might sit. Follow PEMS 

manufacturer instructions for installing 

PEMS in cargo spaces, engine spaces, or 

externally such that PEMS is directly 

exposed to the outside environment. 

Locate PEMS where it will be subject to 

minimal sources of the following 

parameters: 

(1) Ambient temperature changes. 

(2) Ambient pressure changes. 

(3) Electromagnetic radiation. 

(4) Mechanical shock and vibration. 

(5) Ambient hydrocarbons—if using a 

FID analyzer that uses ambient air as 

FID burner air. 

(c) Use mounting hardware as 

required for securing flexible 

connectors, ambient sensors, and other 

equipment. Use structurally sound 

mounting points such as vehicle frames, 

trailer hitch receivers, walkspaces, and 

payload tie-down fittings. We 

recommend mounting hardware such as 

clamps, suction cups, and magnets that 

are specifically designed for your 

application. We also recommend 

considering mounting hardware such as 

commercially available bicycle racks, 

trailer hitches, and luggage racks where 

applicable. 

(d) Field testing may require portable 

electrical power to run your test 

equipment. Power your equipment, as 

follows: 

(1) You may use electrical power from 

the vehicle, equipment, or vessel, up to 

the highest power level, such that all the 

following are true: 

(i) The power system is capable of 

safely supplying power, such that the 

power demand for testing does not 

overload the power system. 

(ii) The engine emissions do not 

change significantly as a result the 

power demand for testing. 

(iii) The power demand for testing 

does not increase output from the 

engine by more than 1 % of its 

maximum power. 

(2) You may install your own portable 

power supply. For example, you may 

use batteries, fuel cells, a portable 

generator, or any other power supply to 

supplement or replace your use of 

vehicle power. However, you must not 

supply power to the vehicle, vessel, or 

equipment s power system under any 

circumstances. 

88. Section 1065.915 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) before the table 

and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(5)(iii)(B) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.915 PEMS instruments. 

(a) Instrument specifications. We 

recommend that you use PEMS that 

meet the specifications of subpart C of 

this part. For unrestricted use of PEMS 

in a laboratory or similar environment, 

use a PEMS that meets the same 

specifications as each lab instrument it 

replaces. For field testing or for testing 

with PEMS in a laboratory or similar 

environment, under the provisions of 

§ 1065.905(b), the specifications in the 

following table apply instead of the 

specifications in Table 1 of § 1065.205. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Recording ECM signals. If your 

ECM updates a broadcast signal more or 

less frequently than 1 Hz, process data 

as follows: 

(i) If your ECM updates a broadcast 

signal more frequently than 1 Hz, use 

PEMS to sample and record the signal 

s value more frequently. Calculate and 

record the 1 Hz mean of the more 

frequently updated data. 

(ii) If your ECM updates a broadcast 

signal less frequently than 1 Hz, use 

PEMS to sample and record the signal 

s value at the most frequent rate. 

Linearly interpolate between recorded 

values and record the interpolated 

values at 1 Hz. 

(iii) Optionally, you may use PEMS to 

electronically filter the ECM signals to 

meet the rise time and fall time 

specifications in Table 1 of this section. 

Record the filtered signal at 1 Hz. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) Use a single BSFC value that 

approximates the BSFC value over a test 

nterval (as defined in subpart K of this 

part). This value may be a nominal 

BSFC value for all engine operation 

determined over one or more laboratory 

duty cycles, or it may be any other BSFC 

that you determine. If you use a nominal 

BSFC, we recommend that you select a 

value based on the BSFC measured over 

laboratory duty cycles that best 

represent the range of engine operation 

that defines a test interval for fieldVerDate Aug<31>2005 04:54 Apr 03, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM 03APP2

sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16150 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

testing. You may use the methods of this 

paragraph (d)(5)(iii)(B) only if it does 

not adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable standards. 

* * * * * 

89. Section 1065.920 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(7) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 1065.920 PEMS Calibrations and 

verifications. 

(a) Subsystem calibrations and 

verifications. Use all the applicable 

calibrations and verifications in subpart 

D of this part, including the linearity 

verifications in § 1065.307, to calibrate 

and verify PEMS. Note that a PEMS 

does not have to meet the systemresponse specifications of § 1065.308 if 

it meets the overall verification 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. This section does not apply to 

ECM signals. 

(b) * * * 

(7) The PEMS passes this verification 

if any one of the following are true for 

each constituent: 

* * * * * 

90. Section 1065.925 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.925 PEMS preparation for field 

testing. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(8) If corrective action does not 

resolve the deficiency, you may use a 

contaminated HC system if it does not 

prevent you from demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. 

91. Section 1065.935 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.935 Emission test sequence for 

field testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Continue sampling as needed to 

get an appropriate amount of emission 

measurement, according to the standard 

setting part. If the standard-setting part 

does not describe when to stop 

sampling, develop a written protocol 

before you start testing to establish how 

you will stop sampling. You may not 

determine when to stop testing based on 

emission results. 

* * * * * 

Subpart K—[Amended] 

92. Section 1065.1001 is amended by 

revising the definitions for ‘‘Regression 

statistics’’ and ‘‘Tolerance’’ and adding 

definitions in alphabetical order for 

‘‘Mode’’, ‘‘NIST accepted’’, and 

‘‘Recommend’’ to read as follows: 

§ 1065.1001 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Mode means one of the following: 

(1) A distinct combination of engine 

speed and load for steady-state testing. 

(2) A continuous combination of 

speeds and load specifying a transition 

during a ramped-modal test. 

(3) A distinct operator demand 

setting, such as would occur when 

testing locomotives or constant-speed 

engines. 

NIST accepted means relating to a 

value that has been assigned or named 

by NIST. 

* * * * * 

Recommend has the meaning given in 

§ 1065.201. 

Regression statistics means any of the 

regression statistics specified in 

§ 1065.602. 

* * * * * 

Tolerance means the interval in 

which 95% of a set of recorded values 

of a certain quantity must lie, with the 

remaining 5% of the recorded values 

deviating from the tolerance interval. 

Use the specified recording frequencies 

and time intervals to determine if a 

quantity is within the applicable 

tolerance. 

* * * * * 

93. Section 1065.1005 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) to add defined 

acronyms for ‘‘CITT’’ and ‘‘FEL’’ in the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, 

acronyms, and units of measure. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

* * * * * 

CITT ... Curb Idle Transmission Torque. 

FEL ..... Family Emission Limit. 

* * * * * 

94. Section 1065.1010 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) and adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.1010 Reference materials. 

* * * * * 

(b) ISO material. Table 2 of this 

section lists material from the 

International Organization for 

Standardization that we have 

incorporated by reference. The first 

column lists the number and name of 

the material. The second column lists 

the section of this part where we 

reference it. Anyone may purchase 

copies of these materials from the 

International Organization for 

Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH–

1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland or http:// 

www.iso.org. Table 2 follows: 

TABLE 2 OF § 1065.1010.—ISO MATERIALS

Document No. and name Part 1065 

reference 

ISO 14644–1, Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments ..................................................................................................... 1065.190 

ISO 8217:2005, Petroleum products—Fuels (class F)—Specifications of marine fuels ........................................................................ 1065.705 

ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products—Laboratory determination of density—Hydrometer method .......... 1065.705 

ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001, Crude petroleum and petroleum products—Determination of density—Oscillating U-tube method ....... 1065.705 

ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997, Petroleum products—Transparent and opaque liquids—Determination of kinematic viscosity and calculation of dynamic viscosity ............................................................................................................................................................... 1065.705 

ISO 2719:2002, Determination of flash point—Pensky-Martens closed cup method ............................................................................. 1065.705 

ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum products—Determination of pour point ....................................................................................................... 1065.705 

ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996, Petroleum products—Determination of carbon residue—Micro method ................................................. 1065.705 

ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum products—Determination of ash .................................................................................................................. 1065.705 

ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum products and bituminous materials—Determination of water—Distillation method .................................... 1065.705 

ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum products—Determination of sulfur content—Energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry ............ 1065.705 

ISO 14596:1998/Cor 1:1999, Petroleum products—Determination of sulfur content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence 

spectrometry ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1065.705 

ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum products—Determination of vanadium and nickel content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence 

spectrometry ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1065.705 

ISO 10307–2:1993, Petroleum products—Total sediment in residual fuel oils—Part 2: Determination using standard procedures for 

aging ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1065.705 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 16151 

TABLE 2 OF § 1065.1010.—ISO MATERIALS—Continued 

Document No. and name Part 1065 

reference 

ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum products—Determination of aluminum and silicon in fuel oils—Inductively coupled plasma emission 

and atomic absorption spectroscopy methods .................................................................................................................................... 1065.705 

IP–470, Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, calcium, zinc and sodium in residual fuels, by AAS finish .................................... 1065.705 

IP–500 Phosphorus content of residual fuels by ultra-violet spectrometry ............................................................................................. 1065.705 

IP–501 Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium, calcium, zinc and phosphorus in residual fuel oil, by ICP finish .............. 1065.705 

* * * * * 

(f) Institute of Petroleum material. 

Table 6 of this section lists the Institute 

of Petroleum standard test methods 

material from the Energy Institute 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 

Energy Institute, 61 New Cavendish 

Street, London, W1G 7AR, UK, +44 

(0)20 7467 7100 or http:// 

www.energyinst.org.uk. Table 6 follows: 

TABLE 6 OF § 1065.1010.—INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM MATERIALS

Document No. and name Part 1065 

reference 

IP–470, Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, calcium, zinc and sodium in residual fuels, by AAS finish .................................... 1065.705 

IP–500 Phosphorus content of residual fuels by ultra-violet spectrometry ............................................................................................. 1065.705 

IP–501 Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium, calcium, zinc and phosphorus in residual fuel oil, by ICP finish .............. 1065.705 

95. The authority citation for part 

1068 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

96. Section 1068.1 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1068.1 Does this part apply to me? 

(a) The provisions of this part apply 

to everyone with respect to the 

following engines and to equipment 

using the following engines (including 

owners, operators, parts manufacturers, 

and persons performing maintenance). 

(1) Locomotives and locomotive 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1033. 

(2) Land-based nonroad compressionignition engines we regulate under 40 

CFR part 1039. 

(3) Stationary compression-ignition 

engines certified to the provisions of 40 

CFR part 1039, as indicated under 40 

CFR part 60, subpart IIII. 

(4) Stationary spark-ignition engines 

certified to the provisions of 40 CFR 

parts 1048 or 1054, as indicated under 

40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ. 

(5) Marine compression-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1042. 

(6) Marine spark-ignition engines we 

regulate under 40 CFR part 1045. 

(7) Large nonroad spark-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1048. 

(8) Recreational SI engines and 

vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1051 (such as snowmobiles and offhighway motorcycles). 

(9) Small nonroad spark-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

1054. 

(b) This part does not apply to any of 

the following engine or vehicle 

categories: 

(1) Light-duty motor vehicles (see 40 

CFR part 86). 

(2) Heavy-duty motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle engines (see 40 CFR part 

86). 

(3) Aircraft engines (see 40 CFR part 

87). 

(4) Land-based nonroad diesel engines 

we regulate under 40 CFR part 89. 

(5) Small nonroad spark-ignition 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

90. 

(6) Marine spark-ignition engines we 

regulate under 40 CFR part 91. 

(7) Locomotives and locomotive 

engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 

92. 

(8) Marine diesel engines we regulate 

under 40 CFR parts 89 or 94. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–1107 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS