[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 3, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15938-16151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1107]



[[Page 15937]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 92, 94, 1033, et al.



Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and 
Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder; 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 15938]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) emissions that contribute to 
nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 ocean-going 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 restricted-activity 
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:
    <bullet> www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Fax: (202) 566-1741
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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,

[[Page 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6ab93838a8a8394c8ac898e88a6839687c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a477f6f66666f7824406562644a6f7a6b246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>, or Assessment and 
Standards Division Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214-4636.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

[diams] Does This Action Apply to Me?

[diams] 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category               NAICS Code \1\    potentially affected
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................  333618, 336510...  Manufacturers,
                                                    remanufacturers and
                                                    importers of
                                                    locomotives and
                                                    locomotive engines.
Industry......................  482110, 482111,    Railroad owners and
                                 482112.            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.
[diams] Marine
    This proposed action would affect companies and persons that 
manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new marine 
compression-ignition 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category               NAICS Code \1\    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.

[diams] Additional Information About This Rulemaking

[diams] 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.
[diams] 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.
[diams] 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-

[[Page 15940]]

0012).\1\<SUP> </SUP>\2\ Those dockets are incorporated by reference 
into the docket for this action, OAR-2003-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1 2\ Control 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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).
    \5\ Marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl displacement are 
not included in this program. See Section III.E, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from locomotive and marine diesel 
engines would be reduced by 765,000 tons and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Existing and proposed standards vary by displacement and within power categories. Reductions indicated are
  typical.
\b\ This 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 aftertreatment-based 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 three-part approach to setting 
standards for locomotives and marine diesel engines would provide very 
large reductions in PM, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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

[[Page 15942]]

diesel applications already covered under EPA's National Clean Diesel 
Campaign.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We are not proposing any change to the current definition of 
a ``new locomotive'' in 40 CFR Sec.  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''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF>, based on 
the evolution of high-efficiency 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 near-term 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 cost-effective 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions.
    The proposed marine diesel engine standards include stringent 
engine-based 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

[[Page 15943]]

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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) and nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) that contribute 
to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and ozone. NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> levels. We estimate that today hese engines account for 
about 20 percent of mobile source NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and about 25 
percent of mobile source diesel PM <INF>2.5</INF> emissions. Under 
today's proposed standards, by 2030, annual NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
from these diesel engines would be reduced by 765,000 tons and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.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.
    \9\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment, EPA has recently finalized nonattainment designations

[[Page 15944]]

(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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the future.
    In addition to public health impacts, there are public welfare and 
environmental impacts associated with ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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. 
NO<INF>X</INF> and direct emissions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions 
resulting from the standards proposed in this action would assist 
states in attaining and maintaining the Ozone and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS near term and in the decades to come.
    In September 2006, EPA finalized revised PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
reductions resulting from this proposal will be needed by states to 
both attain and maintain the revised PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Two 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.
    \11\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment 
technologies. As discussed in greater detail in section III.D, the 
development of these aftertreatment technologies for

[[Page 15945]]

highway and nonroad diesel applications has advanced rapidly in recent 
years, so that very large emission reductions in PM and NO<INF>X</INF> 
(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 heavy-
duty 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from locomotive and marine 
diesel engines can also be achieved with high-efficiency exhaust 
emission control technologies. Such technologies are expected to be 
used to meet the stringent NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 newly-built 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

[[Page 15946]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions resulting from the 
standards proposed in this action would be important to states' efforts 
in attaining and maintaining the Ozone and the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) that contribute to nonattainment of 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions by 
28,000 tons; NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nationwide 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that reductions of PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
accounting for approximately 20 percent of mobile source NO<INF>X</INF> 
and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and 35 percent of the total mobile 
source NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. It also shows the location of 
mandatory class I federal areas for visibility.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 15947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    The engine standards proposed in this rule would help reduce 
emissions of PM, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOCs, CO, and air toxics and their 
associated health and

[[Page 15948]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and VOC inventory reductions from 
this rulemaking critical to states as they seek to either attain or 
maintain the current PM<INF>2.5</INF> or ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
ozone nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.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.
    \16\ Hand, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions from these 
sources. In addition, locomotive and marine diesel engines emit high 
levels of NO<INF>X</INF> which react in the atmosphere to form 
secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF>, ammonium nitrate. Locomotive and marine 
diesel engines also emit SO<INF>2</INF> and HC which react in the 
atmosphere to form secondary PM<INF>2.5</INF> composed of sulfates and 
organic carbonaceous PM<INF>2.5</INF>. 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. PM<INF>10</INF> refers to 
particles generally less than or equal to 10 micrometers ([mu]m). 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> refers to fine particles, those particles generally 
less than or equal to 2.5 [mu]m in diameter. Inhalable (or 
``thoracic'') coarse particles refer to those particles generally 
greater than 2.5 [mu]m but less than or equal to 10 [mu]m in diameter. 
Ultrafine PM refers to particles less than 100 nanometers (0.1 [mu]m). 
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., SO<INF>X</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOCs) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical 
properties of PM<INF>2.5</INF> may vary greatly with time, region, 
meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS includes a short-term (24-hour) 
and a long-term (annual) standard. The 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS 
established by EPA set the 24-hour standard at a level of 65 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> 
averaged over three years. EPA has recently finalized PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment designations for the 1997 standard (70 FR 943, Jan 5, 
2005).\18\ All areas currently in nonattainment for

[[Page 15949]]

PM<INF>2.5</INF> will be required to meet these 1997 standards between 
2009 and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ US EPA, Air Quality Designations and Classifications for 
the Fine Particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in Figure II-1 ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels 
exceeding the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    EPA has recently amended the NAAQS for PM<INF>2.5</INF> (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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS was revised from 65 [mu]g/
m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ to provide increased protection against health 
effects associated with short-term exposures to fine particles. The 
current form of the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard was retained 
(e.g., based on the 98th percentile concentration averaged over three 
years). The level of the annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS was retained at 
15 [mu]g/m\3\, continuing protection against health effects associated 
with long-term exposures. The current form of the annual 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> secondary standard by making it identical to the 
revised 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> primary standard and retained the 
annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> secondary standard. This suite of secondary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS as well 
as the number of additional counties which have monitored data that is 
violating the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. In total more than 106 
million U.S. residents, in 257 counties are living in areas which 
either violate either the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard or the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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             208      88,394,000
 designated.............................
2006 PM2.5 Standards: Counties with                   49      18,198,676
 violating monitors \b\.................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................             257     106,595,676
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Population numbers are from 2000 census data.
\b\ This 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> levels and as a result of 
these programs, the number of areas that fail to achieve the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [mu]g/m\3\ and the revised daily standard 
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards.\19\ 
This does not account for additional areas that have air quality 
measurements within 10 percent of the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Final RIA PM NAAQS, Chapter 2: Defining the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Problem. October 17, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States have told EPA that they need the reductions this proposed 
rule would provide in order to meet and maintain both the current 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. Based on 
the final rule designating and classifying PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
nonattainment areas, most PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas will be 
required to attain the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions to 
help them to either attain or maintain the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
(b) Health Effects of PM<INF>2.5</INF>
    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

[[Page 15950]]

with PM can also be found in the draft RIA for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ U.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.
    \21\ U.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.
    \22\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Health effects associated with short-term exposures (hours to days) 
to ambient PM include premature mortality, increased hospital 
admissions, heart and lung diseases, increased cough, adverse lower-
respiratory 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
exposures. Additional information on acute exposures is available in 
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \24\ Pope 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These health effects of PM<INF>2.5</INF> have been further 
documented in local impact studies which have focused on health effects 
due to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Riekider, 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.
    \26\ Riediker, 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.
    \28\ Brunekreef, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, new studies \30\ from the State of California provide 
evidence that PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ State 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Modeling Results
    Air quality modeling performed for this proposal shows that in 2020 
and 2030 all 39 current PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas would 
experience decreases in their PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values. For areas 
with PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values greater than 15 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> 
the modeled future-year PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values are expected to 
decrease on average by 0.06 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> in 2020 and 0.14 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> in 2030. The maximum decrease for future-year 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values in 2020 would be 0.35 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP> and 0.90 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values (DV) in 
counties across the US, can be seen in Figure II-2.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 15951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.001

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 15952]]

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> design values of 
-0.50 to -0.90 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> DV ranging from -0.05 to -0.24 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP>.
(d) PM Air Quality Modeling Methodology
    A national scale air quality modeling analysis was performed to 
estimate future year annual and daily PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions. 
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC contribute to the formation of ground-level 
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 (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 high-temperature 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The highest levels of ozone are produced when both VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are present in significant quantities on clear 
summer days. Relatively small amounts of NO<INF>X</INF> enable ozone to 
form rapidly when VOC levels are relatively high, but ozone production 
is quickly limited by removal of the NO<INF>X</INF>. Under these 
conditions NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are highly effective in reducing 
ozone while VOC reductions have little effect. Such conditions are 
called ``NO<INF>X</INF>-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 NO<INF>X</INF>-limited.
    When NO<INF>X</INF> levels are relatively high and VOC levels 
relatively low, NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> reductions can actually increase 
local ozone under certain circumstances. Even in VOC-limited urban 
areas, NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are not expected to increase ozone 
levels if the NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are sufficiently large.
    Rural areas are usually NO<INF>X</INF>-limited, due to the 
relatively large amounts of biogenic VOC emissions in many rural areas. 
Urban areas can be either VOC- or NO<INF>X</INF>-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 (NO<INF>2</INF>); 
as the air moves downwind and the cycle continues, the NO<INF>2</INF> 
forms additional ozone. The importance of this reaction depends, in 
part, on the relative concentrations of NO<INF>X</INF>, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ EPA's review of the ozone NAAQS is underway and a proposal 
is scheduled for May 2007 with a final rule scheduled for February 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15953]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ A listing of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas is 
included in the draft RIA for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air 
Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling. This document is available in 
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area will have to attain before June 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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. <SUP>36 37 38</SUP> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ U.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.
    \37\ U.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.
    \38\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 15954]]

(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 population-weighted 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

[[Page 15955]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.002

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

[[Page 15956]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ U.S. EPA (2006) National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 
1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons. A number of 
these gaseous hydrocarbon components are individually known to be toxic 
including aldehydes, benzene and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel particulate 
matter (DPM) present in diesel exhaust consists of fine particles (<2.5 
[mu]m), including a subgroup with a large number of ultrafine particles 
(<0.1 [mu]m). 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 (heavy-duty, light-duty), 
engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), and fuel 
formulations (high/low sulfur fuel). Also, there are emissions 
differences between on-road and nonroad engines because the nonroad 
engines are generally of older technology. This is especially true for 
locomotive and marine diesel engines.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ U.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 
electronically at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 15957]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 case-control 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 exhaust-exposed occupations.\43\<SUP> </SUP>\44\<SUP> </SUP>\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ U.S. EPA (2002) Health Assessment Document for Diesel 
Engine Exhaust. EPA/6008-90/057F Office of Research and Development, 
Washington, DC. 9-11.
    \44\ Bhatia, R., Lopipero, P., Smith, A. (1998) Diesel exposure 
and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9(1):84-91.
    \45\ Lipsett, M: Campleman, S; (1999) Occupational exposure to 
diesel exhaust and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 
80(7): 1009-1017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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<SUP>-</SUP>\4\ to 
10<SUP>-</SUP>\5\ to as high as 10<SUP>-</SUP>\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<SUP>-</SUP>\4\ or 10<SUP>-</SUP>\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 case-control 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 [mu]g/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \47\ Heinrich, 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.
    \48\ Mauderly, 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.
    \49\ Nikula, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Kilburn (2000). See HAD Chapter 5-7.
    \51\ Hart, 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 15958]]

(iii) Ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [mu]g/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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS is designed to 
provide protection from the noncancer and premature mortality effects 
of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [mu]g/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 [mu]g/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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> as a result of 
rail yard emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Hand, 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> of port-related diesel PM in ambient air, 
about 360,000 people lived in areas with at least 0.6 [mu]g/m 
<SUP>3</SUP> of diesel PM, and about 50,000 people lived in areas with 
at least 1.5 [mu]g/m <SUP>3</SUP> of ambient diesel PM directly from 
the port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\

[[Page 15959]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the 
Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database (http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>58 59 60</SUP> 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.<SUP>61 62</SUP> The most 
sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data, 
is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in 
blood.<SUP>63 64</SUP> 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.<SUP>65 66 67 68</SUP> EPA's IRIS program has not 
yet evaluated these new data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ U.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.
    \61\ Aksoy, 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.
    \63\ Rothman, 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.
    \64\ U.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.
    \65\ Qu, 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.
    \66\ Qu, 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.
    \67\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004). 
Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science 
306: 1774-1776.
    \68\ Turtletaub, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1,3-Butadiene: EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic 
to humans by inhalation.<SUP>69 70</SUP> 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.<SUP>73 74</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ U.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.
    \70\ U.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.
    \71\ Bevan, 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.
    \72\ U.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.
    \73\ Hauptmann, 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.
    \74\ Hauptmann, 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.
    \75\ Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment 
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 
193-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ U.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.
    \77\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15960]]

available on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the 
animal data provided inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>79 80</SUP> 
EPA has not yet evaluated these recent studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Perera, 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.
    \80\ Perera, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ U.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.
    \82\ Oak 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.
    \84\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to reducing substantial amounts of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the ambient air. In this 
section we discuss the impact of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ National 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/.
    \86\ See 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/Day-17/a177.pdf.
    \87\ U.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.
    \88\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>87 88</SUP>

[[Page 15961]]

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards which would act in 
conjunction with the establishment of a regional haze program. In 
setting this secondary standard EPA concluded that PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas and mandatory class I federal 
areas.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ These 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.
    \90\ As 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>10</INF><INF>-</INF><INF>2.5</INF>. EPA 
also is taking comment on whether to set a separate PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard, designed to address visibility (principally in urban 
areas), on potential levels for that standard within a range of 20 
to 30 [mu]g/m\3\, and on averaging times for the standard within a 
range of four to eight daylight hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Locomotives and marine engines contribute to visibility concerns in 
these areas through their primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and their 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions which contribute to the formation of secondary 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
Current Visibility Impairment
    Recently designated PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas indicate 
that, as of March 2, 2006, almost 90 million people live in 
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS are also listed in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ US EPA, Air Quality Designations and Classifications for 
the Fine Particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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/.
    \92\ US EPA. Regional Haze Regulations, July 1, 1999. (64 FR 
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Predicted 2030
                                                          visibility        Predicted 2030     Change in annual
                       Region                         baseline  w/o rule    visibility with    average deciview
                                                             rule            rule  control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     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

[[Page 15962]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> contribute to ozone and therefore the proposed 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, the precise impact of this rule will 
differ across different areas.
(4) Eutrophication and Nitrification
    The NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Bricker, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 15963]]

can be found in the Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Emissions From Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engines

(1) Overview
    The engine standards being proposed in this rule would affect 
emissions of particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), oxides of nitrogen 
(NO<INF>X</INF>), 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from these engines 
would be reduced by 765,000 tons, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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, NO<INF>X</INF>, VOC, CO, and air toxics inventories. Our 
current baseline and future year estimates for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> inventory and about 2.0 million tons (16 percent) to 
the mobile source NO<INF>X</INF> inventory. In 2030, absent the 
standards proposed today, these engines would contribute about 50,000 
tons (65 percent) to the mobile source diesel PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
inventory and almost 1.6 million tons (35 percent) to the mobile source 
NO<INF>X</INF> inventory.
    The national locomotives and marine diesel engine PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF> inventories in 2030 would be roughly twice as large 
as the combined PM<INF>2.5</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 890,000 more tons of 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions and by 2030 they drop to under 18,000 tons. 
Likewise, in 2001, annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. In 2001, NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 line-haul 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      2001                                         2030
                                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                 Percent
                            Category                                                                                                                of
                                                                 NOX short tons    Percent of      Percent of          NOX         Percent of     total
                                                                                  mobile source       total                       mobile source   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

[[Page 15964]]

 
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              2001                                             2030
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Category                           PM2.5 short      Percent of      Percent of      PM2.5 short      Percent of      Percent of
                                                             tons        diesel mobile    mobile source       tons        diesel mobile    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) PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. Both Tables II-5 and Figure II-4 show 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, by 2030 
to 28,000 annual tons, and reductions would continue to grow through 
2040 to about 39,000 tons of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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          7,000     15,000     28,000     39,000
 Rule.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15965]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.003

    Although this proposed rule results in large nationwide 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2001       2030
              Metropolitan area (MSA)                Percent    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
Indianapolis, IN..................................          5         30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions. Both Table II-7 and Figure II-5 
show NO<INF>X</INF>

[[Page 15966]]

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, by 2030 
to 765,000 annual tons, and reductions would continue to grow through 
2040 to about 1.1 million tons of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions (and PM 
reductions) for this proposed rule compared to the Heavy-Duty Highway 
rule and Nonroad Tier 4 rule. The 2030 NO<INF>X</INF> 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
Nonroad Tier 4....................................    738,000    129,000
Heavy-Duty Highway................................  2,600,000    109,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                               [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.004
                                                               
    Although this proposed rule results in large nationwide 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> inventory 
than the national average as would other communities including 
Birmingham (43 percent), Chicago (42 percent) and Chattanooga (40 
percent).

[[Page 15967]]



 Table II-9.--Locomotive and Marine Diesel Engine Contribution to Mobile
 Source NOX Inventories in Selected Metropolitan Areas in 2001 and 2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2001       2030
             Metropolitan areas (MSA)                Percent    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
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         15,000     27,000     42,000     54,000
 Rule.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                               [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.005
                                                               
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:
    <bullet> Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for newly-built locomotives,
    <bullet> Standards for remanufactured Tier 0, 1, and 2 locomotives,

[[Page 15968]]

    <bullet> Standards and other provisions for diesel switch 
locomotives,
    <bullet> Requirements to reduce idling locomotive emissions, as 
well as possible ways to encourage emission reductions through the 
optimization of multi-locomotive teams (consists), and
    <bullet> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ All of the regulatory parts referenced in this preamble are 
parts in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, unless 
otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 steam-
powered 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl displacement are 
not included in this program. See Section 3E, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

    NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 15969]]

(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Consistent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> (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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For 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/bhp-hr (0.30 g/
kW-hr). They would also need to comply with a new Tier 0 NO<INF>X</INF> 
line-haul standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr (9.9 g/kW-hr), 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> reduction for them on the order of 15 percent, 
from the current Tier 0 line-haul NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
switch-cycle standards) when the locomotive is remanufactured on or 
after January 1, 2008. However, if no certified emissions

[[Page 15970]]

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) 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 line-haul 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) NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
control technologies, most notably injection timing retard (used to 
some degree on all diesel locomotives), to achieve a more modest 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> reductions from remanufactured locomotives. We 
believe that a Tier 3 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
standard at 4.5 g/bhp-hr, but relax the NO<INF>X</INF> standard for 
later model Tier 0 locomotives to 8.0 g/bhp-hr instead of 7.4 g/bhp-hr?
    We are proposing that a manufacturer may defer meeting the Tier 4 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 prove-out issues that might arise with advanced 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 15971]]

that locomotives certified under Tier 4 in 2015 and 2016 without Tier 4 
NO<INF>X</INF> control systems have this system added when they undergo 
their first remanufacture, and be subject to the Tier 4 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 newly-built 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 
line-haul 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 line-haul 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See, for example, letter from Catherine Witherspoon, 
Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board, to EPA 
Administrator Stephen Johnson, September 7, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 15972]]



                        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 NO<INF>X</INF>, or two 1050 hp engines at 0.075/2.6 g/bhp-hr 
PM/NO<INF>X</INF>, or a single 2100 hp engine at 0.075/0.50 or 0.075/
2.6 g/bhp-hr PM/NO<INF>X</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 lower-emitting 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[lE]750 hp.......................................................       0.01  \a\ 3.0 (NOX+NMHC)            2011
                                                                        0.01                0.30            2014
750-1200 hp......................................................      0.075                 2.6            2011
                                                                        0.02            \b\ 0.50            2015
>1200 hp.........................................................      0.075            \b\ 0.50            2011
                                                                        0.02            \b\ 0.50            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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> control technology to these 
applications and engines (69 FR 38979, June 29, 2004). We believe it is 
appropriate to propose a Tier 4 NO<INF>X</INF> standard for switch 
locomotives in 2015 based on SCR technology, as we are proposing for 
line-haul 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 start-

[[Page 15973]]

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Jessica Montanez and Matthew Mahler, ``Reducing Idling 
Locomotives Emissions'', NC Department of Environment and Natural 
Resources, DAQ http://daq.state.nc.us/planning/locoindex.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15974]]

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 in-use 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 ocean-going 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

[[Page 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 ocean-crossing 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 land-based 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 per-cylinder 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 per-cylinder 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 long-term 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         PM  g/bhp-   NOX+HC  g/
                       Rated kW                           L/cylinder         hr         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.
\b\ Option: 0.15 PM/4.3 NOX in 2014.

[[Page 15976]]

 
\c\ This 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         PM  g/bhp-   NOX+HC  g/
                       Rated kW                           L/cylinder         hr         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.
\b\ Option: 0.15 PM/4.3 NOX+HC in 2014.


                          Table III-6.--Proposed Tier 3 Standards for Marine Diesel C2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      NOX+HC  g/
                       Rated kW                           L/cylinder    PM g/bhp-hr     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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         NOX g/bhp-
                       Rated kW                           PM g/bhp-hr        hr      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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This standard is 0.19 for engines with 15-30 liter/cylinder displacement.
\b\ Optional compliance start dates are proposed within these model years; see discussion below.
\c\ Option 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, though both require substantial 
reductions in both PM and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>+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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC. For the largest C2 engines, those 
above 3700 kW (4900 hp), the NO<INF>X</INF>+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

[[Page 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 water-injected 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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/bhp-hr (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 NO<INF>X</INF>, and diesel marine Tier 4 for 
both PM and NO<INF>X</INF> 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/bhp-hr (6.1 g/kW-hr) 
NO<INF>X</INF>+HC standard, compared to the 5.5 g/bhp-hr (7.3 g/kW-hr) 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 15978]]

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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, NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>+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 
NO<INF>X</INF>+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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  92.8 and Sec.  
94.8). Consistent with this, the Tier 3 marine NO<INF>X</INF>+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

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr. In essence, 
locomotive manufacturers will duplicate current Tier 1 locomotive 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> level will not be possible. For these engines 8.0 g/hp-
hr NO<INF>X</INF> 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-
oil-consumption 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 on-highway 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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

[[Page 15980]]

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 on-highway, 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 
non-road 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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., L[auml]mmerman, R., Pappenheimer, A., Rothe, D. 
``Exhaust Gas Aftertreatment System for Euro 4 Heavy-duty Engines'', 
MTZ, June, 2006.
    \105\ Smith, B., Sneed, W., Fritz, S. ``AAR Locomotive Emissions 
Testing 2005 Final Report''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 heavy-duty truck and nonroad PM 
standards in Europe and the U.S. Given the steady-state 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 [deg]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 NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Control Technology
    We have analyzed a variety of technologies available for 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 15981]]

several of the Northeast states. However, by 2010, when 100 percent of 
the heavy-duty diesel trucks are required to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF>-reducing 
technologies such as lean NO<INF>X</INF> catalysts, NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ ``Review of SCR Technologies for Diesel Emission Control: 
European Experience and Worldwide Perspectives,'' presented by Dr. 
Emmanuel Joubert, 10th DEER Conference, July 2004.
    \107\ Lambert, C., ``Technical Advantages of Urea SCR for Light-
Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Applications,'' SAE Technical 
Paper 2004-01-1292, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An SCR catalyst reduces nitrogen oxides to elemental nitrogen 
(N<INF>2</INF>) and water by using ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 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 high-temperature exhaust gasses (>200 
[deg]C), the urea hydrolyzes to form NH<INF>3</INF> and CO<INF>2</INF>. 
The NH<INF>3</INF> is stored on the surface of the SCR catalyst where 
it is used to complete the NO<INF>X</INF>-reduction reaction. In 
theory, it is possible to achieve 100 percent NO<INF>X</INF> conversion 
if the NH<INF>3</INF>-to-NO<INF>X</INF> ratio ([alpha]) 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 [alpha] of 0.85-1.0 is often used to balance the need 
for high NO<INF>X</INF> conversion rates against the potential for 
NH<INF>3</INF> slip (where NH<INF>3</INF> passes through the catalyst 
unreacted). The urea dosing strategy and the desired [alpha] are 
dependent on the conditions present in the exhaust gas; namely 
temperature and the quantity of NO<INF>X</INF> present (which can be 
determined by engine mapping, temperature sensors, and NO<INF>X</INF> 
sensors). Overall NO<INF>X</INF> conversion efficiency, especially 
under low-temperature exhaust gas conditions, can be improved by 
controlling the ratio of two NO<INF>X</INF> species within the exhaust 
gas; NO<INF>2</INF> and NO. This can be accomplished through use of an 
oxidation catalyst upstream of the SCR catalyst to promote the 
conversion of NO to NO<INF>2</INF>. The physical size and catalyst 
formulation of the oxidation catalyst are the principal factors that 
control the NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO ratio, and by extension, improve the 
low-temperature performance of the SCR catalyst.
    Recent studies have shown that an SCR system is capable of 
providing well in excess of 80 percent NO<INF>X</INF> reduction 
efficiency in high-power, diesel applications.\108110\ SCR catalysts 
can achieve significant NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
control strategies will certainly be capable of precisely controlling 
NO<INF>X</INF> under all conditions whenever the exhaust gas 
temperature is greater than 150 [deg]C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Walker, A.P. et al., ``The Development and In-Field 
Demonstration of Highly Durable SCR Catalyst Systems,'' SAE 2004-01-
1289.
    \109\ Conway, 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.
    \111\ Telephone conversation with Gary Keefe, Argillon, June 6, 
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that we have the most up-to-date information on urea SCR 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions control systems that are 
similar to those that we expect to be implemented in locomotive and 
marine applications.
    Urea injection systems applied to on-highway 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 NO<INF>X</INF> sensors to maintain closed-loop 
feedback control of urea injection. These NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 15982]]

    Even though we believe that the issues of catalyst durability and 
urea injection accuracy have been addressed in existing NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Control 
Technology
    Published studies indicate that SCR systems should experience very 
little deterioration in NO<INF>X</INF> 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 ash-cleaning intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Conway, R. et al., ``NO<INF>X</INF> and PM Reduction Using 
Combined SCR and DPF Technology in Heavy Duty Diesel Applications,'' 
SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-3548, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Packaging of Catalytic PM and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 post-SCR 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 ft\3\ of total displacement, the 
volume requirement for the aftertreatment components would be 
approximately 25 ft\3\. 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions control technology on-board locomotives is actually less 
challenging than packaging similar technology on-board 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ ``AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices,'' 
Standard S-5510, Association of American Railroads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For commercial vessels that use marine diesel engines greater than 
600 kW, we expect that marine vessel builders will need to re-package 
and re-design 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Telephone conversation between Brian King, Elliot Bay 
Design Group, and Brian Nelson, EPA, July 24, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We did determine, however, that for recreational vessels and for 
vessels equipped with engines less than 600 kW, catalytic PM and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 15983]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
SCR system. For light-duty, heavy-duty, and nonroad applications, the 
preferred reductant in an SCR system is a 32.5 percent urea-water 
solution. The 32.5 percent solution, also known as the ``eutectic'' 
concentration, provides the lowest freezing point (-11 [deg]C or 12 
[deg]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 emissions-grade urea solution are now 
under way amongst light- and heavy-duty on-highway diesel stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ Miller, W. et al., ``The Development of Urea-SCR 
Technology for U.S. Heavy Duty Trucks,'' SAE Technical Paper 2000-
01-0190, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 heavy-duty 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-per-year 
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 demand-to-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \118\ Assuming the dosing rate of 32.5 percent urea-water 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 NO<INF>X</INF> exhaust treatment 
technology would be feasible to meet our proposed emissions standards.

[[Page 15984]]

(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?
    [cir] 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).
    [cir] 120 minutes per year operation at 700 Celsius.
    [cir] Soot exposure equal to 0.03 g/bhp-hr.
    [cir] Shock loading averaging 1,000 mechanical shock pulses per 
year due to hard coupling.
    [cir] Extended periods of vibration where the vibration load on the 
catalysts can reach 6G and 1000 Hz.
    [cir] Water exposure due to rains, icing, water spray and condensed 
frozen or liquid water during 20% of its life.
    [cir] Salt fog consisting of 5 <plus-minus> 1% salt concentration 
by weight with fallout rate between 0.00625 and 0.0375 ml/cm\2\/hr.
    [cir] The catalysts will be subject to sands composed of 95% of 
SiO<INF>2</INF> with particle size between 1 to 650 microns in diameter 
with sand concentration of 1.1 <plus-minus> 0.25 g/m\3\ and air 
velocity of 29 m/s (104 km/h).
    [cir] 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 <plus-minus> 7 g/m\3\ with a velocity 
equal to locomotive motion velocity on catalyst surfaces.
    (2) Is it feasible for a Zeolite SCR catalyst (as compared to the 
Vanadium-based 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 NO<INF>X</INF> under 
both steady state and transient load conditions.
    (5) The feasibility of a reliable NO<INF>X</INF> sensor with 5% 
accuracy to control urea dosing sufficiently to achieve a 95% 
NO<INF>X</INF> conversion efficiency using a Zeolite-based SCR when not 
kinetically limited.
    (6) The expected level of ammonia slip catalyst selectivity back to 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>.
    (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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
conversion effectiveness.
    (11) The impact of the proposed Tier 4 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
    <bullet> 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 Zeolite-type 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?
    <bullet> 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?
    <bullet> Question 1 implies that a locomotive catalyst design would 
directly expose catalyst substrates to salt fogs consisting of 5 <plus-
minus> 1% salt concentration by weight with fallout rate between 
0.00625 and 0.0375 ml/cm\2\/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?
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 15985]]

conducted to demonstrate the durability of the engine and turbocharger 
systems and emissions compliance following such high rates of engine 
ingestion of abrasive materials?
    <bullet> Questions 2 and 3 imply that greater than 45% DOC 
oxidation efficiency is required to maintain Zeolite SCR catalyst 
efficiency at greater than 94% NO<INF>X</INF> efficiency, and that 94% 
NO<INF>X</INF> efficiency is required to meet the proposed Tier 4 
NO<INF>X</INF> standard. Is greater than 45% oxidation efficiency for 
an upstream DOC necessary for locomotives to meet the 1.3 g/bhp-hr 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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% NO<INF>X</INF> efficiency from the 
current Tier 2 locomotive baseline even necessary to achieve 1.3 g/bhp-
hr NO<INF>X</INF> emissions when using a Zeolite SCR catalyst system 
over the line-haul duty-cycle?
    <bullet> 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?
    <bullet> Is 5% of point the limit of zirconia-NO<INF>X</INF> sensor 
accuracy? Does NO<INF>X</INF> sensor accuracy currently limit 
NO<INF>X</INF> conversion efficiency of feedback controlled SCR 
systems, and if so by how much? What level of NO<INF>X</INF> conversion 
efficiency using a Zeolite-based SCR when not kinetically limited is 
achievable using current feedback control systems using of zirconia-
NO<INF>X</INF> sensors? What level of NO<INF>X</INF> conversion 
efficiency can be expected taking into consideration projected 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
foreign-flagged 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and 76 percent 
of SO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Residual 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.
    \121\ Corbett, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
SO<INF>X</INF> Emission Control Areas adjacent to North America to 
reduce SO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> limits 
for new C3 engines which are equal to the current international 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 after-treatment 
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 ocean-going 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

[[Page 15986]]

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from OGVs. 
In addition, the use of lower sulfur residual or distillate fuels and/
or the use of SO<INF>X</INF> scrubbing technologies offer the potential 
to substantially reduce PM and SO<INF>X</INF> 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) SO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>X</INF> limit of 6 g/kW-hr (a value 
deemed equivalent to 15,000 ppm sulfur). This represents only 
approximately a 45 percent reduction in SO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
compared to the world-wide 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:
    <bullet> Retrofit and replace older diesel engines with verified 
technologies such as diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs), diesel 
particulate filters (DPFs).
    <bullet> Use cleaner fuels (ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, 
emulsions).
    <bullet> Increase operational efficiency, including environmental 
management systems, logistics, and appointment systems.
    <bullet> Reduce engine idling.
    <bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 15987]]

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 standard-setting 
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:
    <bullet> Specifications and calculations written in the 
international system of units (SI).
    <bullet> Procedures by which manufacturers can demonstrate that 
alternate test procedures are equivalent to specified procedures.
    <bullet> Specifications for new measurement technology that has 
been shown to be equivalent or more accurate than existing technology.
    <bullet> Procedures that improve test repeatability.
    <bullet> Calculations that simplify emissions determination.
    <bullet> New procedures for field testing engines.
    <bullet> More comprehensive sets of definitions, references, and 
symbols.
    <bullet> 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 in-use 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:
    <bullet> Subpart A: General provisions; global information on 
applicability, alternate procedures, units of measure, etc.
    <bullet> Subpart B: Equipment specifications; required hardware for 
testing.
    <bullet> Subpart C: Measurement instruments.
    <bullet> Subpart D: Calibration and verifications; for measurement 
systems.
    <bullet> Subpart E: Engine selection, preparation, and maintenance.
    <bullet> Subpart F: Test protocols; step-by-step sequences for 
laboratory testing and test validation.
    <bullet> Subpart G: Calculations and required information.
    <bullet> Subpart H: Fuels, fluids, and analytical gases.
    <bullet> Subpart I: Oxygenated fuels; special test procedures.
    <bullet> Subpart J: Field testing and portable emissions 
measurement systems.
    <bullet> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0190, ``Redline/
Strikeout of 40 CFR 1065 (Test Procedures) Changes and Additions''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 15988]]

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 Sec.  1065.10(c)(1), we specify 
that testing must be conducted in a way that represents in-use 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 Sec.  1065.15 include a figure illustrating the 
different ways we allow brake-specific 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 in-use 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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> measurement, a 
zirconia sensor for O<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 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, t-test, F-test, etc. By defining 
these quantities mathematically we intend to resolve any potential mis-
communication 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 field-testing 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 sulfur-

[[Page 15990]]

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 Sec.  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 on-highway 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

[[Page 15991]]

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 Sec.  94.105, Table B-4. 
Refer to 40CFR Sec.  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 emission-related 
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 in-use 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 
manufacturer-specified 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 
Sec.  1068.501 to replace the provisions of subparts E in parts 92 and 
94. This would result in two significant changes for manufacturers. 
First, Sec.  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 emission-
related 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 Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ 69 FR 38957, June 29, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15992]]

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 defect-reporting 
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, Sec.  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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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:
    <bullet> That it be illegal to operate without acceptable quality 
urea when the urea is needed to keep the SCR system functioning 
properly.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> That manufacturers must include visible and audible alarms 
at the operator's console to warn of low urea levels or inadequate urea 
quality.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
SCR-equipped 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 SCR-equipped locomotives and vessels will ramp up quite 
gradually over time. In-use 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 no-urea 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 
sulfur-sensitive 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

[[Page 15994]]

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 
catalyst-equipped 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, Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Part 1045 is scheduled to be proposed just before this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

[[Page 15995]]

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 In-Use 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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

[[Page 15996]]

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: Post-manufacture 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 post-manufacture 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 one-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 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

[[Page 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, land-based 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 land-based 
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 Sec.  94.907 of the existing regulations. For 
further details of engine dressers responsibilities see Sec.  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 small-volume 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

[[Page 15998]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC Standards
    We are proposing new Tier 4 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>+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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC FEL, and 
use emission credits to show compliance with the alternate standard 
instead of the otherwise applicable NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC credits and NO<INF>X</INF> credits 
could be averaged together without discount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ For model year 2015 and 2016 the alternate standard would 
b3 5.5 g/bhp-hr NO<INF>X</INF>+HC. In all cases the alternate 
standard would be equal to the otherwise applicable NO<INF>X</INF> 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 
Sec. Sec.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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

[[Page 15999]]

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 
line-haul 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ 66 FR 5109-5111, January 18, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 technology-forcing 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 Sec.  
1033.705 of the proposed regulations. These would replace the existing 
proration factors of Sec.  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/bhp-hr 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 fleet-average 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

[[Page 16000]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> credits to comply with the line-haul 
emission standard, the manufacturer would have to use 1.0 megagrams of 
line-haul NO<INF>X</INF> credits and 1.0 megagrams of switch 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 [deg]F to 105 [deg]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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rates.
    We are proposing to change the lower limit for testing to 60 [deg]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 (Sec.  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 
M<INF>i1</INF> (and M<INF>i1a</INF> 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 Sec.  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:
    <bullet> The locomotive program is uniquely tailored to the 
railroad industry to ensure emission reductions for actual locomotive 
operation over 30-60 year service lives.

[[Page 16002]]

    <bullet> At sufficiently high sales levels, the per locomotive cost 
of certifying under part 92 become less significant.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 (Sec.  1033.625) and the short term (Sec.  
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 design-certification 
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

[[Page 16003]]

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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 cycle-weighted emissions would essentially 
double, increasing by up to 1.3 g/bhp-hr.

                  Table IV-2.--Proposed In-Use Add-Ons
                               [g/bhp-hr]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            NOX  (2017-     PM  (2015-
        For useful life fractions              2019)           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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ 70 FR 40458, July 13, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 Sec.  
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 pre-Tier 
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

[[Page 16004]]

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 ten-year 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16005]]

(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 by-product 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, and the Annex VI 
standards are NO<INF>X</INF> only. At the same time, however, the 
NO<INF>X</INF> Technical Code allows a ten percent allowance for in-use 
testing on residual fuel, to accommodate any marginal impact on 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
aftertreatment for these engines by setting a tighter NO<INF>X</INF> 
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

[[Page 16006]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 heavy-duty 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

[[Page 16007]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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/NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ The PM/NO<INF>X</INF>+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% 
NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC; DPF systems including marinization costs on 
marine applications are 100% PM; and, equipment hardware costs are 
split evenly.

                         Table V-1.--New Engine and Equipment Variable Engineering Costs
                                                   [$Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Engine         Equipment
                                     variable        variable     Total variable                     Total for
              Year                  engineering     engineering     engineering    Total for PM      NOX+NMHC
                                       costs           costs           costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Locomotive      Locomotive                                     Recreational
                       Power range                           line haul     switcher \a\      C1 Marine       C2 Marine      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.
\c\ A blank entry means there are no engines in that market segment/power range.
\d\ $0 means costs are estimated at $0.


[[Page 16008]]

(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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions requires basic research on 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ The PM/NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC cost allocations for fixed 
costs used in this cost analysis are as follows: Engine research 
expenditures are 67% NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC and 33% PM; engine tooling 
and certification costs are split evenly; and, equipment redesign 
costs are split evenly.

                            Table V-3.--Engine and Equipment Fixed Engineering Costs
                                                   ($Million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total fixed
                                 Engine     Engine       Engine     Equipment                 Total    Total for
             Year               research   tooling   certification   redesign  engineering    for PM    NOX+NMHC
                                                                                   costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ The PM/NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC cost allocations for operating 
costs used in this cost analysis are as follows: Urea costs are 100% 
NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC; DPF maintenance costs are 100% PM; and, fuel 
consumption impacts are split evenly.

[[Page 16009]]



                                 Table V-4.--Estimated Increased Operating Costs
                                                   ($Millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fuel       Total
                   Year                     Urea  use      DPF      consumption  operating    Total    Total for
                                                       maintenance     impact       costs     for PM     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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, most of the operating costs are associated 
with NO<INF>X</INF>+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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Costs associated with the remanufacturing program are 
split evenly between NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC and PM.

 Table V-5.--Estimated Engineering Costs Associated With the Locomotive
                         Remanufacturing Program
                               ($Millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Remanu-
                                       facturing   Total for   Total for
                Year                    Program       PM       NOX+NMHC
                                         Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Equipment                      Engineering
                                         Engine related      related        Operating      costs of the        Total                      Total NOX+NMHC
                  Year                     engineering     engineering        costs      remanufacturing    engineering   Total PM costs       costs
                                              costs           costs                          program           costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011...................................              99               0              11               97             207              93             113
2012...................................              55               0              13               75             142              62              80

[[Page 16010]]

 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, most of the operating costs and, therefore, 
the majority of the total engineering costs are associated with 
NO<INF>X</INF>+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 equipment-related 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.

[[Page 16011]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.006

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 16012]]

 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2006 thru 2040  2006 thru 2040
                                                                    discounted      discounted    Long-term cost
                            Pollutant                              lifetime cost   lifetime cost    per ton in
                                                                   per ton at 3%   per ton at 7%       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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comparison with other emissions control programs, we believe 
that the proposed locomotive and marine program represents a cost 
effective strategy for generating substantial NO<INF>X</INF>+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 
NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC and PM from mobile sources.

    Table V-9.--Proposed Locomotive and Marine Standards Compared to
                         Previous Mobile Source
                         [Programs for NOX+NMHC]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               $/ton
                         Program                             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             2,390
 6).....................................................
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

[[Page 16013]]

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.<SUP>141 142</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ All estimates presented in this section are in 2005$.
    \142\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ EPA 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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    Entities that use rail      Railroads.
                                     Services.              transportation services
                                                            as production input or
                                                            for personal
                                                            transportation.
                                    Locomotives..........  Railroads.................  Locomotive manufacturers
                                                                                        (integrated
                                                                                        manufacturers).
Marine............................  Marine Transportation  Entities that use marine    Entities that provide
                                     Services.              transportation services     marine transportation
                                                            as production input.        services.
                                                                                       <bullet> Tug/tow/pushboat
                                                                                        companies.
                                                                                       <bullet> Cargo companies.
                                                                                       <bullet> Ferry companies.
                                                                                       <bullet> Supply/crew
                                                                                        companies.
                                                                                       <bullet> Other commercial
                                                                                        users.

[[Page 16014]]

 
                                    Marine Vessels.......  Entities that provide       Vessel manufacturers.
                                                            marine transportation
                                                            services.
                                                           <bullet> Tug/tow/pushboat
                                                            companies..
                                                           <bullet> Cargo companies..
                                                           <bullet> Ferry companies..
                                                           <bullet> Supply/crew
                                                            companies..
                                                           <bullet> Other commercial
                                                            users..
                                                           <bullet> Fishing persons..
                                                           <bullet> Recreation users.
                                    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Until 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-of-sight characteristics than what is needed for switchers. 
Therefore, the industry is anticipating a new market for dedicated 
switchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 16015]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ U.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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240-R-
00-003, September 2000, pp. 125-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ See, for example, EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic 
Analyses, EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000, p 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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),

[[Page 16016]]

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     -0.5 (inelastic)......  Literature Estimate..  0.6 (inelastic)......  Literature Estimate.
                                      Services.
                                     Locomotives (all        Derived...............  N/A..................  2.7 (elastic)........  Calibration Method
                                      types).                                                                                       Estimate.
Marine.............................  Marine Transportation   -0.5 (inelastic)......  Literature Estimate..  0.6 (inelastic)......   Literature Estimate.
                                      Services.
                                     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.

[[Page 16017]]

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> standards; and 2017, for locomotive NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 over-estimated. 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 production-weighted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 16018]]

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 follow-on 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ The 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.

                       Table V-13.--Estimated Market Impacts for 2011, 2016, 2030 (2005$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average         Change in price         Change in variable
                                                   variable  ---------------------------------------------------
                     Market                      engineering
                                                   cost per     Absolute     Percent      Absolute     Percent
                                                     unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Rail Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives....................................           $0        -$425        -0.02            0         -0.1
Transportation Services........................           NA         NA a          0.1         NA a          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         NA a         0.00         NA a          0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Rail Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives....................................       36,363       35,929          1.9            0         -0.1

[[Page 16019]]

 
Transportation Services........................           NA         NA a          0.1         NA a         -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         NA a          0.1          NAa         -0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Rail Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives....................................       50,291       49,087          2.6            0         -0.2
Transportation Services........................           NA         NA a          0.4         NA a         -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         NA a          0.6         NA a         -0.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Engineering costs
                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                        Marine       Marine engine                                     Rail new                      Total social
                                             operating      and vessel    Rail operating   Rail remanuf.    locomotive         Total           costs
                                               costs           costs           costs           costs           costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 16020]]

 
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a EPA 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2011                            2016
                Stakeholder group                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  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

[[Page 16021]]

 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
 
                                                               2020                            2030
                Stakeholder group                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  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   Surplus change
                                               costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 16022]]

 
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 $3.1 billion (2005$).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 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).
    \151\ EPA 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-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
                                                ($million, 2005$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Surplus change    Percent of    Surplus change    Percent of
               Stakeholder groups                     NPV 3%       total surplus      NPV 7%       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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16023]]

(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 industry-level 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and direct PM 
emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated 
with ambient ozone and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\<SUP>,</SUP>\153\ 
They are described in detail in the RIA prepared for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ U.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.
    \153\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 16024]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 \a\ \b\ \c\ \d\
                                             (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-    ($1.0-$10)          ($2.1-$27)
     95th %ile).
Using a 7% discount rate........  $4.0+B             $11+B
    Confidence Intervals (5th-    ($1.0-$9.2)        ($1.8-$25)
     95th %ile).
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-    ($0.2 - $8.5) -    ($1.0 - $23) -
     95th %ile).                   ($2.0 - $27)       ($5.4 - $72)
Using a 7% discount rate........  $1.6+B - $11+B     $4.3+B - $30+B
    Confidence Intervals (5th-    ($0.2 - $7.8) -    ($1.0 - $21) -
     95th %ile).                   ($1.8 - $24)       ($4.9 - $65)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits include avoided cases of mortality, chronic illness, and
  other morbidity health endpoints.
\b\ PM-related mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM
  threshold of 10 [mu]/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.
\c\ For 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.
\e\ The 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 16025]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the 
software, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ 
benmodels.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 epidemiologically-derived 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Estimating the 
Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>, and an assumed cutpoint in the short-term 
morbidity concentration-response functions at 10 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>. 
The impact using four alternative cutpoints (3 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>, 7.5 
[mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>, 12 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>, and 14 [mu]g/
m<SUP>3</SUP>) has on PM<INF>2.5</INF>-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      570 (220-920)                            1,500 (590-2,400)
  Epidemiology Literature b c Adult, age
 30<plus-minus>Range based on ACS cohort
         study (Pope et al. 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infant, age <1 year--Woodruff et al. 1997  1 (1-2)                                  2 (1-4)
Premature Mortality--Derived from Expert   180-1,700 (0-830)--(870-2,600)           460-4,600 (0-2,200)-(2,300-
 Elicitation c d Adult, age 25<plus-                                                 6,900)
 minus>Lower and Upper Bound EE Results,
 Respectively.
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and      370 (68- 670)                            940 (170-1,700)
 over).
Acute myocardial infarction (adults, age   1,200 (640-1,700)                        3,300 (1,800-4,800)
 18 andolder).
Hospital admissions--respiratory (all      130 (65-200)                             350 (170-510)
 ages) e.
Hospital admissions--cardiovascular        270 (170-380)                            770 (490-1,100)
 (adults, age >18) f.

[[Page 16026]]

 
Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18   460 (270-650)                            1,000 (620-1,500)
 years and younger).
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8-12)....  1,000 (0-2,100)                          2,600 (0-5,300)
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age  11,000 (5,400-17,000)                    28,000 (14,000-43,000)
 7-14).
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic      8,300 (2,600-14,000)                     21,000 (6,600-35,000)
 children, age 9-18).
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children,   10,000 (1,100-29,000)                    26,000 (2,800-74,000)
 age 6-18).
Work loss days (adults, age 18-65).......  71,000 (62,000-81,000)                   170,000 (150,000-190,000)
Minor restricted-activity days (adults,    420,000 (360,000-490,000)                1,000,000 (850,000-
 age 18-65).                                                                         1,200,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. PM estimates represent benefits from the proposed standards
  nationwide.
\b\ Based on application of the effect estimate derived fromthe ACS study.\157\ Infant premature mortality based
  upon studies by Woodruff, et al. 1997.\158\
\c\ PM-related mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM threshold at 10 [mu]g/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.
\d\ Based 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 the risk of premature death, 
along with 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Pope, 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.
    \158\ Woodruff, 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above estimates of monetized benefits include only one example 
of non-health related benefits. Changes in the ambient level of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.

[[Page 16027]]



   Table VI-3.--Estimated Monetary Value in Reductions in Incidence of
                       Health and Welfare Effects
                        [in millions of 2005$]a,b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2020                2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Estimated mean
                                                           value of
   PM2.5-related health effect                          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............  $10,000
                                  ($500-$8,800).....  ($1,500-$24,000)
7% discount rate................  $3,700............  $9,400
                                  ($500-$7,900).....  ($1,300-$21,000)
Infant Mortality,<1 year --       ..................  ..................
 Woodruff et al. 1997.
3% discount rate................  $8................  $17
                                  ($1-$18)..........  ($3-$37)
7% discount rate................  $7................  $15
                                  ($1-$16)..........  ($2-$33)
Premature mortality--Derived      ..................  ..................
 from Expert Elicitationc,d,e,f.
Adult, age 25+--Lower bound EE    ..................  ..................
 result.
3% discount rate................  $1,200............  $3,300
                                  ($0-$7,200).......  ($0-$20,000)
7% discount rate................  $1,100............  $3,000
                                  ($0-$6,500).......  ($0-$18,000
Adult, age 25+--Upper bound EE    ..................  ..................
 result.
3% discount rate................  $12,000...........  $31,000
                                  ($1,800-$25,000)..  ($4,800-$68,000)
7% discount rate................  $11,000...........  $28,000
                                  ($1,600-$23,000)..  ($4,400-$62,000)
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26    $200..............  $500
 and over).                       ($10-$800)........  ($26-$2,100)
Non-fatal acute myocardial        ..................  ..................
 infarctions.
3% discount rate................  $123..............  $330
                                  ($32-$270)........  ($80-$730)
7% discount rate................  $119..............  $320
                                  ($30-$270)........  ($76-$720)
Hospital admissions for           $2.7..............  $7.2
 respiratory causes.              ($1.3-$4.0).......  ($3.6-$11)
Hospital admissions for           $7.3..............  $21
 cardiovascular causes.           ($4.6-$10)........  ($13-$28)
Emergency room visits for asthma  $0.16.............  $0.37
                                  ($0.09-$0.26).....  ($0.20-$0.60)
Acute bronchitis (children, age   $0.44.............  $1.1
 8-12).                            ($0-$1.2)........  ($0-$3.1)
Lower respiratory symptoms        $0.21.............  $0.53
 (children, 7-14).                ($0.07-$0.43).....  ($0.18-$1.1)
Upper respiratory symptoms        $0.24.............  $0.62
 (asthma, 9-11).                  ($0.05-$0.59).....  ($0.14-$1.5)
Asthma exacerbations............  $0.53.............  $1.4
                                  ($0.04-$2.0)......  ($0.10-$5.1)
Work loss days..................  $11...............  $27
                                  ($9.6-$12)........  ($23-$30)
Minor restricted-activity days    $12...............  $29
 (MRADs).                         ($0.61-$25).......  ($1.5-$60)
Recreational Visibility, 86       $150..............  $400
 Class I areas.                   (na)f.............  (na)
Monetized Total--PM-Mortality     ..................  ..................
 Derived from ACS Study;
 Morbidity Functions.
3% discount rate................  $4.4..............  $12 Billion
                                  ($1.0-$10)........  ($2.1-$27)
7% discount rate Billion........  $4.0 Billion......  $11 Billion
                                  ($1.0-$9.2).......  ($1.8-$25)
Monetized Total--PM-Mortality     ..................  ..................
 Derived from Expert
 Elicitationg; Morbidity
 Functions.
3% discount rate................  $1.7-$12 Billion..  $4.6-$33 Billion
                                  ($0.2-$8.5)--($2.0  ($1.0-$23)--($5.4-
                                   -$27).              $72)
7% discount rate................  $1.6-$11 Billion..  $4.3-$30 Billion
                                  ($0.2-$7.8)--($1.8  ($1.0-$21)--($4.9-
                                   -$24).              $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)
c PM-related mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM threshold
  of 10 [mu]/m3. There is uncertainty about which threshold to use and
  this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate.
d Valuation 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).

[[Page 16028]]

 
e The 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.
f We 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Effects not included in analysis--changes
      Pollutant/effects                           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           Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate
 Deposition Welfare.            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.

[[Page 16029]]

 
c While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be
  captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to
  short-term 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:
    <bullet> The exclusion of potentially significant and unquantified 
benefit categories (such as health, odor, and ecological benefits of 
reduction in air toxics, ozone, and PM);
    <bullet> Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as 
population growth;
    <bullet> Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions 
inventories and air quality;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> 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 
elicitation-based 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> The C-R function for fine particles is approximately 
linear within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration 
(above the assumed threshold of 10 [mu]g/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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-to-

[[Page 16030]]

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          ..............  ..............
 ProposedStandards\c d e\...............
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates represent annualized benefits and costs anticipated
  for the years 2020 and 2030. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
\b\ The 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.
\c\ Annual 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
\d\ Valuation 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Guidelines for 
Preparing Economic Analyses. www.yosemite1.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed/hsf/pages/Guideline.html.
    \163\ Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of 
the President, 2003. Circular A-4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions by 65,000 tons NPV 3% (35,000 tons NPV 7%) 
and NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NPV 3% (5,000 tons NPV 7%) and 420,000 tons of 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Through 2040 this 
alternative would decrease PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NPV 3% (94,000 NPV 7%) and 2,910,000 tons NPV 3% 
(1,310,000 NPV 7%) of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions and almost 4,960,000 tons NPV 3% 
(1,870,000 tons at NPV 7%) of NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 16032]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ Pursuant 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 five-year 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> threshold is 
appropriate because technologies to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> may not be as 
amenable to a remanufacturing kit

[[Page 16034]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 high-volume 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 EPA-certified 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 locomotive-based 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-oil-consumption 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. In 
some cases, this could be as much as 60 percent reduction for PM and 25 
percent reduction for NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> reductions, and an additional 320,000 tons NPV 3% 
(220,000 tons at NPV 7%) of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
inventory reductions, costs,

[[Page 16035]]

and benefits of each alternative estimated for the year 2030.

                          Table VII-1.--Summary of Inventory and Costs at NPV 3% and 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimated
                                                                       PM2.5       Estimated NOX    Total costs
             Alternatives                       Standards           reductions      reductions    millions 2006-
                                                                   2006-2040 NPV   2006-2040 NPV    2040 NPV 3%
                                                                      3% (7%)         3% (7%)        (7%) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Case..........................  <bullet> Locomotive              315,000       7,870,000          $7,230
                                         Remanufacturing.              (135,000)     (3,180,000)        ($3,230)
                                        <bullet> Tier 3 Near-
                                         term program.
                                        <bullet> Tier 4 Long-
                                         term standards.
Alternative 1: Exclusion of Locomotive  <bullet> Tier 3 Near-            250,000       7,180,000          $6,430
 Remanufacturing.                        term program.                 (100,000)     (2,780,000)        ($2,700)
                                        <bullet> Tier 4 Long-
                                         term standards.
Alternative 2: Tier 4 Advanced One      <bullet> Locomotive              324,000       8,290,000        $7,590+C
 Year.                                   Remanufacturing.              (140,000)     (3,390,000)      ($3,440)+C
                                        <bullet> Tier 3 Near-
                                         term program.
                                        <bullet> Tier 4 Long-
                                         term standards advanced
                                         one year.
Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in    <bullet> Tier 4 Long-            255,000       8,050,000        $7,410+C
 2013.                                   term standards only in        (104,000)     (3,280,000)      ($3,220)+C
                                         2013.
Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4..  <bullet> Locomotive              207,000       2,910,000            $950
                                         Remanufacturing.               (94,000)     (1,310,000)          ($650)
                                        <bullet> Tier 3 Near-
                                         term program.
Alternative 5: Inclusion of Marine      <bullet> Locomotive              342,000       8,190,000          $7,650
 Remanufacturing.                        Remanufacturing.              (151,000)     (3,400,000)        ($3,510)
                                        <bullet> Tier 3 Near-
                                         term program.
                                        <bullet> Tier 4 Long-
                                         term standards.
                                        <bullet> Addition of
                                         Marine Remanufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Benefits
                                                    2030 PM2.5       2030 NOX       2030 Total        \a\ \b\
                                                     Emissions       Emissions         costs        (billions)
                                                    reductions      reductions      (millions)     PM2.5 only 3%
                                                      (tons)          (tons)                           (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Case....................................          28,000         770,000            $610       $12 ($11)
Alternative 1: Exclusion of Locomotive                    25,000         740,000            $580     $8.8 ($8.0)
 Remanufacturing................................
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                        29,000         770,000            $620       $12 ($11)
 Remanufacturing................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\b\ Annual 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 e-mail. 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

[[Page 16036]]

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:
    <bullet> Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    <bullet> Describe any assumptions that you used.
    <bullet> Provide any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
    <bullet> If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    <bullet> Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    <bullet> Offer alternatives.
    <bullet> Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 16037]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Defined by SBA as
                                                       a small business
            Industry                NAICS \a\ Codes     if less than or
                                                         equal to: \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotive:
    Manufacturers,                333618, 336510....  1,000 employees.
     remanufacturers and
     importers of locomotives
     and locomotive engines.
    Railroad owners and           482110, 482111,     1,500 employees.
     operators.                    482112.            500 employees.
    Engine repair and             488210............  $6.5 million
     maintenance.                                      annual sales.
Marine:
    Manufacturers of new marine   333618............  1,000 employees.
     diesel engines.
    Ship and boat building; ship  336611, 346611....  1,000 employees.
     building and repairing.
    Engine repair and             811310............  $6.5 million
     maintenance.                                      annual sales.
    Water transportation,         483...............  500 employees.
     freight and passenger.
    Boat building (watercraft     336612............  500 employees.
     not built in shipyards and
     typically of the type
     suitable or intended for
     personal use).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR 121), businesses with no more
  than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are
  considered ``small entities'' for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ U.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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16038]]

    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
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Railroads qualifying as small businesses would be exempt 
from new Tier 0, 1, and 2 remanufacturing requirements for locomotives 
in their existing fleets.
    <bullet> Railroads qualifying as small businesses would continue 
being exempt from the in-use testing program.
    (ii) Marine Sector
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> Marine engine dressers (modify base engine without 
affecting the emission characteristics of the engine) would be exempted 
from certification and compliance requirements.
    <bullet> Post-manufacture marinizers, small-volume manufacturers, 
and small-volume 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 cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 16040]]

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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 cycle-weighted 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 COMPRESSION-IGNITION 
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:


Sec.  94.1  Applicability.

    (b) * * *
    (3) Marine engines subject to the standards of 40 CFR part 1042.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec.  94.2, paragraph (b) is amended by adding definitions 
for ``Nonroad'' and ``Nonroad engine'' in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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.

[[Page 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:


Sec.  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/kW-hr].
PM = Measured weighted PM level [g/KW-hr].
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/KW-hr].
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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  94.209  Special provisions for post-manufacture marinizers and 
small-volume manufacturers.

* * * * *
    (a) Broader engine families. Instead of the requirements of Sec.  
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.

[[Page 16042]]

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 non-locomotive-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


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.5.
    (a) Standards begin to apply each time a locomotive or locomotive 
engine is originally manufactured or otherwise becomes new (defined in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.901) 
after December 31, 2007.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 16043]]

    (j) Subpart J of this part contains definitions and other reference 
information.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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


Sec.  1033.101  Exhaust emission standards.

    See Sec. Sec.  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: Sec.  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 Sec.   1033.101.--Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Standards (g/bhp-hr)
        Year of original manufacture                 Tier of standards       -----------------------------------
                                                                                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.
b Tier 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.
d The 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: Sec.  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 Sec.   1033.101.--Switch Locomotive Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Standards (g/bhp-hr)
        Year of original manufacture                 Tier of standards       -----------------------------------
                                                                                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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Switch locomotives subject to the Tier 1 through Tier 2 emission standards must also meet line-haul standards
  of the same tier.
b The 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.

[[Page 16044]]



                 Table 3 of Sec.   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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 = (E<INF>i</INF>) x (1.1 + (1-ELH<INF>i</INF>/std))

Where:

E<INF>i</INF> = 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, HC (or NMHC or THCE, as applicable), CO or PM.
ELH<INF>i</INF> = 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 ELH<INF>i</INF> 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 diesel-fueled locomotives to use the 
applicable grades of diesel fuel as follows:
    (i) Certify your Tier 4 and later diesel-fueled 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 diesel-fueled 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-
locomotive-specific engines (as defined in Sec.  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

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC standards for Tier 4. 
Manufacturers/remanufacturers may certify Tier 4 locomotives to an 
alternate NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC emission standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr 
(instead of the otherwise applicable NO<INF>X</INF> and NMHC 
standards). You may use NO<INF>X</INF> credits to show compliance with 
this standard by certifying your family to a NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC FEL. 
Calculate the NO<INF>X</INF> credits needed as specified in subpart H 
of this part using the NO<INF>X</INF>+NMHC emission standard and FEL in 
the calculation instead of the otherwise applicable NO<INF>X</INF> 
standard and FEL.


Sec.  1033.102  Transition to the standards of this part for model 
years before 2015.

    (a) Except as specified in Sec.  1033.150(a), the Tier 0 and Tier 1 
standards of Sec.  1033.101 apply for new locomotives beginning January 
1, 2010, except as specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.150(a), the Tier 2 standards 
of Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.101 apply for the 
model years specified in that section.


Sec.  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 emission-control system. See Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1033.110 and an audible alarm. You do not need to separately monitor 
urea quality if you include an exhaust NO<INF>X</INF> 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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 16046]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 
emission-related 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.


Sec.  1033.125  Maintenance instructions.

    Give the owner of each new locomotive written instructions for 
properly maintaining and using the locomotive, including the emission-
control 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 Sec.  
1033.245 and in 40 CFR part 1065.

[[Page 16047]]

Sec.  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: ``Emission-related 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.


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 16048]]

    (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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1033.225.


Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> standards for Tier 4. For model years 
2015 and 2016, freshly manufactured locomotives are not required to 
meet the Tier 4 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF> adjustment applies only for 
model year 2017-2019 line-haul locomotives and 2015-2017 switch 
locomotives and does not apply for locomotives with a NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 Sec.   1033.150--In-use Adjustments for Tier 4 Line-Haul
                               Locomotives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 In-use adjustments (g/
                                                         bhp-hr)
                                               -------------------------
                                                 For model    For model
     Fraction of useful life already used        year 2017-   year 2015-
                                                2019 Tier 4  2017 Tier 4
                                                    NOX           PM
                                                 standards    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 Sec.   1033.150.--In-use Adjustments for Tier 4 Switch
                               Locomotives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 In-use adjustments (g/
                                                         bhp-hr)
                                               -------------------------
                                                 For model    For model
     Fraction of useful life already used        year 2015-   year 2015-
                                                2017 Tier 4  2017 Tier 4
                                                    NOX           PM
                                                 standards    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


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.901 may apply for a certificate of 
conformity for freshly manufactured locomotives. Anyone meeting the 
definition of remanufacturer in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 16050]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  1033.210.
    (10) The intended useful life period for the engine family, in 
accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 16051]]

any service accumulation to be used to develop the factors.


Sec.  1033.220  Amending maintenance instructions.

    You may amend your emission-related maintenance instructions after 
you submit your application for certification, as long as the amended 
instructions remain consistent with the provisions of Sec.  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 in-use 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 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. We may ask you to send us 
copies of maintenance instructions revised under this paragraph (c).


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 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 locomotives

[[Page 16052]]

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.


Sec.  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 (air-to-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-to-air, 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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  1033.235  Emission testing required for certification.

    This section describes the emission testing you must perform to 
show compliance with the emission standards in Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 emission-data 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF>+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.


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 16054]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 emission-related 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.920).

Subpart D--Manufacturer and Remanufacturer Production Line Testing 
and Audit Programs


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  1033.305, 1033.310, 1033.315, 1033.320, 
1033.325, and 1033.335 will apply as specified in the notice.
    (b) The requirements of Sec.  1033.340 apply only to 
remanufacturers.
    (c) As specified in Sec.  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.


Sec.  1033.305  General requirements.

    (a) Manufacturers (and remanufacturers, where applicable) are 
required to test production line locomotives using the test procedures 
specified in Sec.  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

[[Page 16055]]

requirements of Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  1033.325  Calculation and reporting of test results.

    (a) Calculate initial test results using the applicable test 
procedure specified in Sec.  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

[[Page 16056]]

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 non-compliance 
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 Sec.  1033.335(a), a 
description of the remedy and test results for all retests as required 
by Sec.  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)


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.


Sec.  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,

[[Page 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 Sec.  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)


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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,

[[Page 16058]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.1(d).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.

[[Page 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: Sec.  1033.820 specifies that railroads must make 
reasonable efforts to enable you to perform this testing.)

Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.250.
    (b) You may perform minimal set-to-spec 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.425.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.101. Use the applicable duty cycles specified 
in this subpart. Measure emissions of all the pollutants we regulate in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 16060]]

fuel (see Sec. Sec.  1033.101 and 1033.135). For example, do not test 
with ultra low-sulfur 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 EPA-certified.
    (ii) Determine the APU engine's cycle-weighted power when operating 
in the locomotive.
    (iii) Multiply each of the APU's applicable brake-specific 
standards/FELs by the APU engine's cycle-weighted 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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 [deg]C (60 [deg]F) to 40.5 [deg]C (105 [deg]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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 [deg]C, you generally will need to adjust your measured 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.

[[Page 16061]]

Sec.  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, <plus-minus> 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 Sec.  1033.101 to determine applicability of smoke 
testing and Sec.  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, <plus-minus> 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 Sec.  1065.530. Note that cycle validation criteria do 
not apply to testing of complete locomotives.

                               Table 1 of Sec.   1033.510.--Locomotive Test Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Time in mode  (minutes)  Sample averaging period
              Test mode                     Notch setting                 \1\               for emissions \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-test idle........................  Lowest idle setting....  10 to 15...............  Not applicable
A....................................  Low idle \2\...........  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
B....................................  Normal idle............  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
C....................................  Dynamic brake \2\......  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
1....................................  Notch 1................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
2....................................  Notch 2................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
3....................................  Notch 3................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
4....................................  Notch 4................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
5....................................  Notch 5................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
6....................................  Notch 6................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
7....................................  Notch 7................  5 to 10................  300 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
8....................................  Notch 8................  10 to 15...............  600 <plus-minus> 5
                                                                                          seconds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The time in each notch and sample averaging period may be extended as needed to allow for collection of a
  sufficiently large PM sample.
\2\ Omit if not so equipped.

    (f) There are two approaches for sampling PM emissions during 
discrete-mode 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 Sec.  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 line-haul or 
switch weighting factors specified in Sec.  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

[[Page 16062]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 [deg]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.


Sec.  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 steady-state 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 warm-up 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1033.101 to determine applicability of the smoke standards and Sec.  
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 Sec.   1033.514.--Line-Haul Locomotive Ramped Modal Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Weighting     RMC
            RMC Test phase                factor      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

[[Page 16063]]

 
                                       ...........        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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Operate at normal idle for modes A and B if not equipped with multiple idle settings.
\2\ Operate at normal idle if not equipped with a dynamic brake.


                         Table 2 of Sec.   1033.514.--Switch Lomotive Ramped Modal Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Weighting     RMC
            RMC Test phase                factor      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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Operate at normal idle for modes A and B if not equipped with multiple idle settings.

Sec.  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 
full-flow, 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

[[Page 16064]]

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.


Sec.  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 cycle-weighted average 
emissions as specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G.

      Table 1 of Sec.   1033.520.--Standard Duty Cycle Weighting Factors for Calculating Emission Rates for
                                     Locomotives With Multiple Idle Settings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Line-haul
                                                                            Line-haul    weighting      Switch
                        Notch setting                          Test mode    weighting     factors     weighting
                                                                             factors    (no dynamic    factors
                                                                                           brake)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec.   1033.520.--Standard Duty Cycle Weighting Factors for Calculating Emission Rates for
                                     Locomotives With Multiple Idle Settings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Line-haul
                                                                            Line-haul    weighting      Switch
                        Notch setting                          Test mode    weighting     factors     weighting
                                                                             factors    (no dynamic    factors
                                                                                           brake)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 line-haul 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 Sec.   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%
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16065]]

    (d) Optional Ramped Modal Cycle Testing. Tables 1 and 2 of Sec.  
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 cycle-weighted 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

EF<INF>A</INF> = (F)(EF<INF>H</INF>) + (1-F)(EF<INF>L</INF>)

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.
EF<INF>H</INF> = Measured emissions from a test segment in which the 
regeneration occurs.
EF<INF>L</INF> = 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 = EF<INF>A</INF>-EF<INF>L</INF>

    (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 = EF<INF>H</INF>-EF<INF>A</INF>
    (d) Sample calculation. If EF<INF>L</INF> is 0.10 g/bhp-hr, 
EF<INF>H</INF> is 0.50 g/bhp-hr, and F is 0.1 (the regeneration occurs 
once for each ten tests), then:

EF<INF>A</INF> = (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


Sec.  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.

[[Page 16066]]

    (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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.135.


Sec.  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.

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.101 in-use.
    (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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.)


Sec.  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

[[Page 16068]]

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


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.135. This label must 
include the notification specified in paragraph (i) of this section.


Sec.  1033.705  Calculate emission credits.

    The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating 
emission credits for NO<INF>X</INF> 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 megawatt-hrs, calculate credits for each engine 
family from the following equation:

Emission credits = (Std--FEL) x (1.341) x (UL) x (Production) x 
(F<INF>p</INF>) x (10<SUP>-3</SUP> kW-Mg/MW-g).

Where:

Std = The applicable locomotive and locomotive engine NO<INF>X</INF> 
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.
F<INF>p</INF> = 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

[[Page 16069]]

in terms of megawatt-hours (UL) by dividing the useful life in miles by 
100,000, and multiplying by the sales-weighted 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 Sec.   1033.705.--Proration Factors for Line-Haul Locomotives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Proration
                   Locomotive age (years)                       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
16.........................................................         0.40
17.........................................................         0.36
18.........................................................         0.33
19.........................................................         0.30
20.........................................................         0.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2 of Sec.   1033.705.--Proration Factors for Switch Locomotives
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Proration
                   Locomotive age (years)                       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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 16070]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.745.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.730.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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-of-year 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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.725 and 
Sec.  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.


Sec.  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) NO<INF>X</INF> credits generated under 40 CFR part 92 may be 
used under this part in the same manner as NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> FEL below the applicable switch cycle 
standard and a line-haul cycle NO<INF>X</INF> FEL below the applicable 
line-haul cycle standard may generate switch cycle NO<INF>X</INF> 
credits for use in complying with switch cycle NO<INF>X</INF> standards 
and line-haul cycle NO<INF>X</INF> credits for use in complying with 
line-haul cycle NO<INF>X</INF> standards.
    (c) Single cycle locomotives. As specified in Sec.  1033.101, Tier 
0 switch locomotives, Tier 3 and later switch locomotives, and Tier 4 
and later line-haul 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.920).


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 16072]]

Subpart I--Requirements for Owners and Operators


Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.815 also applies to anyone performing 
maintenance on a locomotive subject to the provisions of this part.


Sec.  1033.805  Remanufacturing requirements.

    (a) See the definition of remanufacture in Sec.  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 Sec.  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).


Sec.  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

[[Page 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).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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).


Sec.  1033.820  In-use locomotives.

    (a) We may require you to supply in-use 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 in-use 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).


Sec.  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


Sec.  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. Exhaust-gas 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.

[[Page 16074]]

    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 Sec.  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 low-hour 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 fuel-injection components, and all 
fuel-system vents.
    Fuel type means a general category of fuels such as diesel fuel or 
natural gas. There can be multiple grades within a

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 throttle-notch 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, 
post-accident 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 16076]]

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 
emission-data 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.655. Where 
a locomotive is manufactured under Sec.  1033.620(b), the date of 
original manufacture is the date on which the final assembly of 
locomotive was originally scheduled. See also Sec.  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 Sec.  1033.140.
    Refurbish has the meaning given in Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 emission-related 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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 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.
    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 
Sec.  1033.101.
    Tier 2 means relating to the Tier 2 emission standards, as shown in 
Sec.  1033.101.
    Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 emission standards, as shown in 
Sec.  1033.101.
    Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4 emission standards, as shown in 
Sec.  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 non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes, 
or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in 
a gas sample, expressed as exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleum-fueled 
locomotives. The hydrogen-to-carbon 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 horsepower-hour.
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.

[[Page 16078]]

 
SEA                               Selective Enforcement Audit.
THC                               total hydrocarbon.
THCE                              total hydrocarbon equivalent.
ULSD                              ultra low sulfur diesel.
U.S.C.                            United States Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 production-line 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 discrete-mode or ramped-modal duty 
cycles.
1042.515 Test procedures related to not-to-exceed 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 heavy-duty 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


Sec.  1042.1  Applicability.

    Except as provided in Sec.  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 Sec.  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:

[[Page 16079]]



                        Table 1 of Sec.   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 1\a\............................  ...........................  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This 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 Sec. Sec.  1042.620 and 1042.801 apply for 
new engines used solely for competition beginning January 1, 2009.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
1042.801, especially for issues related to certification (including 
production-line testing, reporting, etc.).


Sec.  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 
Sec.  1042.801.
    (b) Hobby engines. Engines with per-cylinder displacement below 50 
cubic centimeters are not subject to the provisions of this part 1042.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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


Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC emissions are described 
in Tables 1 and 2 of this section, which follow.

[[Page 16080]]



                          Table 1 of 1042.101.--Tier 3 Standards for Category 1 Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Displacement (L/     Maximum engine     Model    PM (g/kW-  NOX+HC (g/
 Power density and application          cyl)               power           year       hr)       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. <=     kW < 600.........       2012       0.11        5.8
                                  7.0.
                                                                             2018       0.10        5.8
                                                     600 <= kW <= 3700       2012       0.11        5.8
Commercial engines with kW/L >   disp. < 0.9.......  kW [equiv] 75....       2012       0.15        5.8
 35 and all recreational
 engines.
                                 0.9 <= disp. < 1.2  kW [equiv] 75....       2013       0.14        5.8
                                 1.2 <= disp. < 2.5  kW [equiv] 75....       2014       0.12        5.8
                                 2.5 <= disp. < 3.5  kW [equiv] 75....       2013       0.12        5.8
                                 3.5 <= disp. < 7.0  kW [equiv] 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/kW-hr and a NO<INF>X</INF>+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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         PM (g/kW-    NOX+HC (g/
         Displacement (L/cyl)                  Maximum engine power         Model year      hr)         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 Sec.   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, NO<INF>X</INF>, 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                    PM (g/kW-   NOX  (g/kW-   HC (g/kW-
               Application                     Maximum engine power          Displacement (L/cyl)      Model year      hr)          hr)          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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC emission 
standard of 1.8 g/kW-hr instead of the NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 NO<INF>X</INF> standard until the 2017 model 
year. In the 2015 and 2016 model years, these engines must also comply 
with the Tier 3 NO<INF>X</INF>+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 NO<INF>X</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>+HC, and PM emission 
standards for Category 1 and Category 2 engines. You may also use 
NO<INF>X</INF> or NO<INF>X</INF>+HC emission credits to comply with the 
alternate NO<INF>X</INF>+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-to-exceed 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 x 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 in-use, 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 in-use 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 NO<INF>X</INF> aftertreatment system, exclude 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission data that is collected when the exhaust 
temperature is less than 150 [deg]C, as measured within 30 cm 
downstream of the last NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> exhaust 
aftertreatment system for the engine family. We will generally not 
approve a minimum exhaust temperature for catalytic NO<INF>X</INF> 
aftertreatment greater than 250 [deg]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 [deg]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

[[Page 16082]]

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 duty-cycle emission standards in 
this subpart apply to all testing performed according to the procedures 
in Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec. Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 
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 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 
Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 emission-related 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 emission-related 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.


Sec.  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 emission-data 
engines as described in Sec.  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.

[[Page 16084]]

    (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 
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 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 Sec.  
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 emission-related 
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 emission-related maintenance, nor 
that we approve as critical emission-related maintenance). Noncritical 
emission-related 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 emission-related. 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 emission-data 
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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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: ``Emission-related 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.''.

[[Page 16085]]

    (3) Describe the instructions needed to properly install the 
exhaust system and any other components. Include instructions 
consistent with the requirements of Sec.  1042.205(u).
    (4) Describe any necessary steps for installing the diagnostic 
system described in Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 two-piece 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.101. See Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 16086]]

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 per-cylinder 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\x(p)x(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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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. Post-manufacturer marinizers that are small-
volume 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


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.801.


Sec.  1042.205  Application requirements.

    This section specifies the information that must be in your 
application, unless we ask you to include less information under Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 vessel-based 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

[[Page 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  
1042.130).
    (k) Describe your emission control information label (see Sec.  
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 Sec.  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, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and CO on an 
emission-data engine to show your engines meet emission standards as 
specified in Sec.  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 
Sec.  1042.505. Note that Sec. Sec.  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-to-exceed emission 
standards we specify in Sec.  1042.101 for all normal operation and use 
when tested as specified in Sec.  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 CO<INF>2</INF>, 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.725 
if you participate in the ABT program.

[[Page 16088]]

    (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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  1042.220  Amending maintenance instructions.

    You may amend your emission-related maintenance instructions after 
you submit your application for certification, as long as the amended 
instructions remain consistent with the provisions of Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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 (air-to-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 post-manufacture 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.101(a). See 
Sec.  1042.205(p) regarding emission testing related to the NTE 
standards. See Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 16090]]

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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 emission-data 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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. Small-volume engine manufacturers 
and post-manufacture 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>+HC standards, apply the deterioration factor to each 
pollutant and then add the results before rounding.


Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF>+HC

[[Page 16091]]

standard or FEL greater than the Tier 2 NO<INF>X</INF>+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 emission-data 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 Sec.  
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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 16092]]

certificate, you may ask for a hearing (see Sec.  1042.820).

Subpart D--Testing Production-Line Engines


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 duty-cycle 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-
to-exceed standards.
    (b) Modifying a test engine. Once an engine is selected for testing 
(see Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  1042.310  Engine selection.

    (a) Determine minimum sample sizes as follows:

[[Page 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.225(f).


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1042.225).


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
1051.225(f). We will approve your request if it is clear that you used 
good engineering judgment in establishing the original FEL.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 16094]]

    (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.


Sec.  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 
production-line 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.815 for information on how we treat 
information you consider confidential.


Sec.  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 production-line 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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


Sec.  1042.401  General Provisions.

    We may perform in-use testing of any engine subject to the 
standards of this part.

Subpart F--Test Procedures


Sec.  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 Sec.  
1042.101(a). Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the applicable duty cycles specified 
in Sec.  1042.505.
    (b) Section 1042.515 describes the supplemental test procedures for 
evaluating whether engines meet the not-to-exceed emission standards in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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.

[[Page 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 [deg]C. Atmospheric pressure must be between 91.000 and 103.325 kPa, 
and must be within <plus-minus>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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for humidity as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065.


Sec.  1042.505  Testing engines using discrete-mode 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  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 constant-speed 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.


Sec.  1042.515  Test procedures related to not-to-exceed standards.

    (a) This section describes the procedures to determine whether your 
engines meet the not-to-exceed emission standards in Sec.  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.

[[Page 16096]]

    (2) Ambient air temperature must be between 13 and 35 [deg]C (or 
between 13 [deg]C and 30 [deg]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 [deg]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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (EF<INF>A</INF>) based on the following equation:

EF<INF>A</INF> = (F)(EF<INF>H</INF>) + (1-F)(EF<INF>L</INF>)

Where:

F = The frequency of the regeneration event in terms of the fraction 
of tests during which the regeneration occurs.
EF<INF>H</INF> = Measured emissions from a test segment in which the 
regeneration occurs.
    EF<INF>L</INF> = 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 = EF<INF>A</INF>-EF<INF>L</INF>

    (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 = EF<INF>H</INF>-EF<INF>A</INF>

    (d) Sample calculation. If EF<INF>L</INF> is 0.10 g/kW-hr, 
EF<INF>H</INF> is 0.50 g/kW-hr, and F is 0.1 (the regeneration occurs 
once for each ten tests), then:
EF<INF>A</INF> = (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


Sec.  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

[[Page 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 low-sulfur 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).


Sec.  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 non-marine 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

[[Page 16098]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 16100]]

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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 defect-reporting provisions.


Sec.  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


Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.225.
    (i) You may use NO<INF>X</INF>+HC credits to show compliance with a 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission standard or use NO<INF>X</INF> credits to show 
compliance with a NO<INF>X</INF>+HC emission standard.


Sec.  1042.705  Generating and calculating emission credits.

    The provisions of this section apply separately for calculating 
emission credits for NO<INF>X</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>+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) x (Volume) x (Power) x (LF) x (UL) 
x (10<SUP>-3</SUP>)

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 Sec.  
1042.730, compliance

[[Page 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.745.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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-of-year 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 
Sec.  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:

[[Page 16102]]

    (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.


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.820).

Subpart I--Definitions and Other Reference Information


Sec.  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. Exhaust-gas 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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 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, 
internal-combustion engine that is not a spark-ignition 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 low-hour 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 Sec.  1042.505.
    Dresser means any entity that modifies a land-based engine for use 
in a vessel, in compliance with the provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 fuel-injection components, and all 
fuel-system 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 Sec.  
1042.101(d).
    Identification number means a unique specification (for example, a 
model number/serial number combination)

[[Page 16104]]

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 low-sulfur 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 motor-vehicle, nonmarine, or stationary engine 
and becomes a ``new marine engine''. The engine is no longer new when 
it is placed into marine service.
    (3) A marine engine that has been previously placed into service in 
an application we exclude under Sec.  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

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Initial model
                                                                       Per-cylinder displacement      year of
        Engine category and type                  Power (kW)                    (L/cyl)              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 Sec.  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 
emission-data 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 Sec.  1042.140.
    Ramped-modal means relating to the ramped-modal type of steady-
state test described in Sec.  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

[[Page 16106]]

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 
Sec.  1042.101.
    Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4 emission standards, as shown in 
Sec.  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 non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and aldehydes, 
or other organic compounds that are measured separately as contained in 
a gas sample, expressed as exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleum-fueled 
locomotives. The hydrogen-to-carbon 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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.

[[Page 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  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 Sec.   1042.810--SAE Materials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Part 1042
                  Document number and name                    reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms,      1042.135
 Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, revised May 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 Sec.   1042.810.--IMO Materials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Part 1042
                  Document number and name                    reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution 2--Technical Code on Control of Emission of          1042.801
 Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines, 1997.A........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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:

[[Page 16108]]

    (a) We specify the following requirements related to engine 
certification in this part 1042:
    (1) In Sec.  1042.135 we require engine manufacturers to keep 
certain records related to duplicate labels sent to vessel 
manufacturers.
    (2) In Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Model    NMHC +
              Rated power (kW)                            Tier                year1     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. NO<INF>X</INF> 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) 45.0xN<SUP>-0.20</SUP> 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/kW-hr.
    (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,     Maximum engine                       Model   THC+NOX  CO g/kW- PM g/kW-
          rated power                  power             Category        year   g/kW-hr     hr       hr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
disp. < 0.9....................  power [equiv] 37   Category 1.......     2005      7.5      5.0     0.40
                                  kW.
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 [equiv]      Category 2.......     2007      9.8      5.0     0.50
                                  3300 kW.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 16109]]

    (3) Tier 2 supplemental standards. Not-to-exceed 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Percent of
               E3 mode number                          Engine speed \1\            maximum test      Weighting
                                                                                       power          factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................  Maximum test                                   100            0.2
2...........................................  91%                                             75            0.5
3...........................................  80%                                             50            0.15
4...........................................  63%                                             25            0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Time in mode
                RMC 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%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed is relative to maximum test speed.
\2\ The percent power is relative to the maximum test power.
\3\ Advance 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) fixed-pitch 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Percent of
                E5 mode number                          Engine speed \1\           maximum test      Weighting
                                                                                       power          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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Time in
                 RMC mode                      mode           Engine speed 1 3           Power (percent) 2 3
                                            (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed is relative to maximum test speed.
2 The percent power is relative to the maximum test power.

[[Page 16110]]

 
3 Advance 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Observed
       E2 mode number          Engine speed 1     torque      Weighting
                                               (percent) 2     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
2 The 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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Time in mode
                RMC 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%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The percent torque is relative to the maximum test torque as defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
2 Advance 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 Sec.  1042.505(b)(1):
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 16111]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.007

    (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:

[[Page 16112]]

    (i) Percent power > 0.7 x (percent speed)[supcaret]2.5, and
    (ii) Percent power < (percent speed/ 0.9)[supcaret]3.5, and
    (iii) Percent power > 3.0. x (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 x (percent speed)[supcaret]2.5, and
    (ii) Percent power < (percent speed/ 0.9)[supcaret]3.5, and
    (iii) Percent power > 3.0. x (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:

[[Page 16113]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.008

    (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:

[[Page 16114]]

    (i) Percent power > 0.7 x (percent speed)[supcaret]2.5, and
    (ii) Percent power < (percent speed/0.9)[supcaret]3.5, and
    (iii) Percent power > 3.0 x (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 x (percent speed)[supcaret]2.5, and
    (ii) Percent power < (percent speed/0.9)[supcaret]3.5, and
    (iii) Percent power < 3.0 x (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 Sec.  1042.505(b)(3)(I) or in Sec.  1042.505(b)(4)(i):

[[Page 16115]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.009

    (1) Subzone 1 is defined in Sec.  1039.101(e).
    (2) Subzone 2 is defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  1042.505(b)(3)(ii) or in Sec.  
1042.505(b)(4)(ii):

[[Page 16116]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.010


[[Page 16117]]


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    (1) Subzone 1 is defined in Sec.  1039.101(e).
    (2) Subzone 2 is defined in Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.10.
    (2) Model year 2010 and later heavy-duty 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 off-highway 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 Sec.  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 standard-setting 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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 standard-setting 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:

[[Page 16118]]



       Table 1 of Sec.   1065.5--Description of Part 1065 Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Describes these specifications
              This subpart                        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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  1065.12  Approval of alternate procedures.

    (a) To get approval for an alternate procedure under Sec.  
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 
NO<INF>X</INF> measurement procedure, you should theoretically relate 
the alternate detection principle to the specified detection principle 
over the expected concentration ranges for NO, NO<INF>2</INF>, 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:


Sec.  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 standard-
setting 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

[[Page 16119]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.011


[[Page 16120]]


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    21. Section 1065.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (g) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
``<plus-minus>10% of maximum pressure'', or ``(30 <plus-minus> 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 Sec.  
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:


Sec.  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 emission-sampling hardware.
* * * * *
    23. Section 1065.110 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (e) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  1065.10(c)(1).
    24. Section 1065.120 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.110.
* * * * *

[[Page 16121]]

    26. Section 1065.125 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>0.5 [deg]C of the shared humidity measurement.
    (c) Unless stated otherwise in the standard-setting part, maintain 
the temperature of intake air to (25 <plus-minus> 5) [deg]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 [deg]C at the 
inlet to the charge-air cooler throughout testing.
    (ii) At the engine conditions specified by the manufacturer, set 
the coolant flow rate to achieve an air temperature within <plus-
minus>5 [deg]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:


Sec.  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<greek-i>, of 4000 for the combined exhaust 
stream, where Re<greek-i> is based on the inside diameter of the single 
stack. Re<greek-i> is defined in Sec.  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

[[Page 16122]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 gap-insulated 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.1001 for 
procedures related to HEPA-filtration 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; constant-volume 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 thin-walled 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 <plus-minus>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

[[Page 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<greek-i>, of 4000 for the diluted exhaust stream, where 
Re<greek-i> is based on the inside diameter of the dilution tunnel. 
Re<greek-i> is defined in Sec.  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 
Sec.  1065.645 and Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 mini-diluter'' 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 Sec.  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 <plus-minus> 5) [deg]C. We recommend controlling dilution 
air temperature to within a narrower tolerance of (25 <plus-minus> 1) 
[deg]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 <plus-minus>3) [deg]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 
[deg]C.
    (4) Control inside wall temperature to a (42 to 52) [deg]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 <plus-
minus>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

[[Page 16124]]

reject as little heat as practical to meet this specification.
    29. Section 1065.145 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 raw-exhaust 
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 multi-stack engines before 
emission sampling as described in Sec.  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[deg] 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 
O<INF>2</INF> in each stack remains within 5% of the mean O<INF>2</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 <plus-minus> 
11) [deg]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[deg] 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, Viton<SUP>TM</SUP>, or any other material 
that you demonstrate has better properties for emission sampling. For 
raw exhaust sampling, use a non-reactive 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 NO<INF>X</INF> transfer lines upstream of either an 
NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter that meets the specifications of Sec.  
1065.378 or a chiller that meets the specifications of Sec.  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 <plus-minus> 11) [deg]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 
[deg]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 sample-conditioning 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 NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO 
converter that meets the efficiency-performance check specified in 
Sec.  1065.378 at any point upstream of a NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 osmotic-membrane 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, T<INF>dew</INF>, and 
absolute pressure, p<INF>total</INF>, downstream of an osmotic-membrane 
dryer. You may use continuously recorded values of T<INF>dew</INF> and 
p<INF>total</INF> in the amount of water calculations specified in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.645. You 
may also use a nominal p<INF>total</INF>, 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 
NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter or in a sampling system without an 
NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter, the chiller must meet the 
NO<INF>2</INF> loss-performance check specified in Sec.  1065.376. 
Monitor the dewpoint, T<INF>dew</INF>, and absolute pressure, 
p<INF>total</INF>, downstream of a thermal chiller. You may use 
continuously recorded values of T<INF>dew</INF> and p<INF>total</INF> 
in the emission calculations specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.645. 
You may also use a nominal p<INF>total</INF>, 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 T<INF>dew</INF> based on the known chiller efficiency and 
continuous monitoring of chiller temperature, T<INF>chiller</INF>. If 
you do not continuously record values of T<INF>chiller</INF>, 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 
Sec.  1065.645. If it is valid to assume that T<INF>chiller</INF> is 
equal to T<INF>dew</INF>, you may use T<INF>chiller</INF> in lieu of 
T<INF>dew</INF> according to Sec.  1065.645. If it is valid to assume a 
constant temperature offset between T<INF>chiller</INF> and 
T<INF>dew</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> sample pump upstream of either an 
NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter that meets Sec.  1065.378 or a chiller 
that meets Sec.  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 <plus-
minus> 11) [deg]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 
large-diameter 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 [mu]m and no more 
than 1% of PM at an aerodynamic diameter of 1 [mu]m 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 gaseous-phase hydrocarbons from the 
diluted exhaust stream. You may use such components only if we approve 
them under Sec.  1065.10.
    30. Section 1065.170 is amended by revising the introductory text 
and paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 
batch-sampling 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 16126]]

0.473 [mu]g/mm<SUP>2</SUP> 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 Sec.  
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 
<plus-minus> 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 <plus-minus> 20 [mu]m. 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 Sec.  1065.10.
    (v) To minimize turbulent deposition and to deposit PM evenly on a 
filter, use a 12.5[deg] (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 Sec.  1065.170 and made of any of the following materials: 
Delrin<SUP>TM</SUP>, 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 
(C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>5</INF>OH) 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 semi-volatile matter from one filter to 
another.
* * * * *
    31. Section 1065.190 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and 
(g)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 Sec.  1065.690.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) We recommend that you neutralize PM sample media to within 
<plus-minus>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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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, flow-related 
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.205. Note that your overall 
systems for measuring work inputs and outputs must meet the linearity 
verifications in Sec.  1065.307. We recommend that you measure work 
inputs and outputs where they cross the system boundary as shown in 
Figure 1 of Sec.  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 work-conversion 
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 
([eta]<1), or assume an efficiency of 1 ([eta]=1), which would 
overestimate brake-specific emissions. For the example of using 
locomotive tractive power with a generator efficiency of 1 ([eta]=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:


Sec.  1065.215  Pressure transducers, temperature sensors, and dewpoint 
sensors.

* * * * *
    (e) Dewpoint. For PM-stabilization environments, we recommend 
chilled-surface 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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  1065.265  Nonmethane cutter.

* * * * *
    (c) Configuration. Configure the nonmethane cutter with a bypass 
line if it is needed for the verification described in Sec.  1065.365.
* * * * *
    38. Section 1065.270 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1065.270  Chemiluminescent detector.

* * * * *
    (c) NO2-to-NO converter. Place upstream of the CLD an internal or 
external NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter that meets the verification in 
Sec.  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:


Sec.  1065.280  Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O<INF>2</INF> 
detection analyzers.

    (a) Application. You may use a paramagnetic detection (PMD) or 
magnetopneumatic detection (MPD) analyzer to measure O<INF>2</INF> 
concentration in raw or diluted exhaust for batch or continuous 
sampling. You may use O<INF>2</INF> measurements with intake air or 
fuel flow measurements to calculate exhaust flow rate according to 
Sec.  1065.650.
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that it must meet the linearity verification in Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:

[[Page 16128]]



    Table 1 of Sec.   1065.303.--Summary of Required Calibration and
                              Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type of calibration or
           verification                     Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1065.305: Accuracy,          Accuracy: Not required, but
 repeatability and noise.            recommended for initial
                                     installation.
                                    Repeatability: Not required, but
                                     recommended for initial
                                     installation.
                                    Noise: Not required, but recommended
                                     for initial installation.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   1065.308: Continuous         Upon initial installation, after
 analyzer system response and        system reconfiguration, and after
 recording.                          major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.309: Continuous         Upon initial installation, after
 analyzer uniform response.          system reconfiguration, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.310: Torque...........  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.315: Pressure,          Upon initial installation and after
 temperature, dewpoint.              major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.320: Fuel flow........  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.325: Intake flow......  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.330: Exhaust flow.....  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.340: Diluted exhaust    Upon initial installation and after
 flow (CVS).                         major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.341: CVS sampler and    Upon initial installation, within 35
 batch verification.                 days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O       Upon initial installation and after
 interference.                       major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and    Upon initial installation and after
 H2O interference.                   major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.360: FID calibration    Calibrate all FID analyzers: Upon
 THC FID optimization, and THC FID   initial installation and after
 verification.                       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.
Sec.   1065.362: Raw exhaust FID    For all FID analyzers: Upon initial
 O2 interference.                    installation, after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    For THC FID analyzers: Upon initial
                                     installation, after major
                                     maintenance, and after FID
                                     optimization according to Sec.
                                     1065.360.
Sec.   1065.365: Nonmethane cutter  Upon initial installation, within
 penetration.                        185 days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O    Upon initial installation and after
 quench.                             major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O    Upon initial installation and after
 interference.                       major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.376: Chiller NO2        Upon initial installation and after
 penetration.                        major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.378: NO2-to-NO          Upon initial installation, within 35
 converter conversion.               days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.390: PM balance and     Independent verification: Upon
 weighing.                           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.
Sec.   1065.395: Inertial PM        Independent verification: Upon
 balance and weighing.               initial installation, within 370
                                     days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
                                    Other verifications: Upon initial
                                     installation and after major
                                     maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Perform 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:


Sec.  1065.305  Verifications for accuracy, repeatability, and noise.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Use the instrument to quantify a NIST-traceable reference 
quantity, [gamma]<INF>ref.</INF> For gas analyzers the reference gas 
must meet the specifications of Sec.  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 (y<INF>1</INF>, 
y<INF>2</INF>, y<INF>i</INF>,* * * y<INF>10</INF>), ten standard 
deviations, ([sigma]<INF>1</INF>, [sigma]<INF>2</INF>, 
[sigma]<INF>i</INF>, * * * [sigma]<INF>10</INF>), and ten errors 
([egr]<INF>1</INF>, [egr]<INF>2</INF> , [egr]<INF>i</INF> , * * * 
[egr]<INF>10</INF>).
* * * * *

[[Page 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:


Sec.  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 re-calibrating, 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, y<INF>refi</INF>, 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<INF>i</INF>, and reference values, 
y<INF>refi</INF>, to calculate least-squares 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 Sec.  1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may 
weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e., (y<INF>refi</INF>, 
y<INF>i</INF> )), 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 cold-junction compensated, as necessary, 
and is NIST-traceable within <plus-minus>0.5% uncertainty.

                                  Table 1 of Sec.   1065.307.--Measurement Systems That Require Linearity Verifications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Linearity criteria
        Measurement system             Quantity     Minimum verification -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        frequency \a\      [bond]a0 [bond] b         a1 c               SEE \b\               r 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed.....................  fn.............  Within 370 days       <=0.05% fnmax.....  0.98-1.02.........  <=2% fnmax........  >=0.990
                                                     before testing.
Engine torque....................  T..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]Tmax.  0.98-1.02.........  <=2% Tmax.........  >=0.990
                                                     before testing.
Electrical work..................  W..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]Tmax.  0.98-1.02.........  <=2% Tmax.........  >=0.990
                                                     before testing.
Fuel flow rate...................  m..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]mmax.  0.98-1.02 \e\.....  <=2% [middot]mmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing \d\.
Intake-air flow rate.............  n..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]nmax.  0.98-1.02 \e\.....  <=2% [middot]nmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing d.
Dilution air flow rate...........  n..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]nmax.  0.98-1.02.........  <=2% [middot]nmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing d.
Diluted exhaust flow rate........  n..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]nmax.  0.98-1.02.........  <=2% [middot]nmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing d.
Raw exhaust flow rate............  n..............  Within 185 days       <=1% [middot]nmax.  0.98-1.02 e.......  <=2% [middot]nmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing d.
Batch sampler flow rates.........  n..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]nmax.  0.98-1.02.........  <=2% [middot]nmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing d.
Gas dividers.....................  x..............  Within 370 days       <=0.5%              0.98-1.02.........  <=2% [middot]xmax.  >=0.990
                                                     before testing.       [middot][middot]x
                                                                           max.
All gas analyzers................  x..............  Within 35 days        <=1% [middot]xmax.  0.99-1.01.........  <=1% [middot]xmax.  >=0.998
                                                     before testing.
PM balance.......................  m..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]mmax.  0.99-1.01.........  <=1% [middot]mmax.  >=0.998
                                                     before testing.
Stand-alone pressures............  p..............  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]pmax.  0.99-1.01.........  <=1% [middot]pmax.  >=0.998
                                                     before testing.
Analog-to-digital conversion of    [middot]T......  Within 370 days       <=1% [middot]Tmax.  0.99-1.01.........  <=1% [middot]Tmax.  >=0.998
 stand-alone temperature signals.                    before testing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform 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.
\c\ The specified ranges are inclusive. For example, a specified range of 0.98-1.02 for a1 means 0.98<=a1<=1.02.
\d\ These linearity verifications are not required for systems that pass the flow-rate verification for diluted exhaust as described in Sec.   1065.341
  (the propane check) or for systems that agree within <plus-minus>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:


Sec.  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

[[Page 16130]]

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 Sec.  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-CO<INF>2</INF>-C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>-
CH<INF>4</INF>, balance N<INF>2</INF> span gas with a span gas of 
NO<INF>2</INF>, balance N<INF>2</INF>. 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, 
t<INF>10-90</INF>, and mean fall time, t<INF>90-10</INF>, 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:


Sec.  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 t<INF>50</INF> 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 NO-CO-CO<INF>2</INF>-C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>-CH<INF>4</INF>, 
balance N<INF>2</INF>, with a span gas of NO<INF>2</INF>, balance 
N<INF>2</INF>. Connect the gas divider outlet to a 100 [deg]C heated 
line. Connect the other end of this line to a 100 [deg]C heated three-
way tee. Next connect a dewpoint generator, set at a dewpoint of 50 
[deg]C, to one end of a heated line at 100 [deg]C. Connect the other 
end of this line to the heated tee and connect a third 100 [deg]C 
heated line from the tee to an overflow at the inlet of a 100 [deg]C 
heated fast-acting three-way valve (two inlets, one outlet). Connect a 
zero-air source, heated to 100 [deg]C, to a separate overflow at the 
other inlet of the three-way valve. Connect the three-way 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, 
t<INF>10-90</INF>, mean fall time, t<INF>90-10</INF> 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

[[Page 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 t<INF>10-90</INF> and t<INF>90-10</INF> 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 Sec.  
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, t<INF>50</INF>.
    (ii) Verify that all combined gas analyzer signals are time-aligned 
such that all of their t<INF>50</INF> 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 
t<INF>50</INF> times still are not aligned, take corrective action by 
dispersing analyzer signals that have the shortest rise and fall times.
    (iv) If some t<INF>50</INF> 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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  1065.340  Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) calibration.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) The mean dewpoint of the calibration air, T<INF>dew</INF>. See 
Sec.  1065.640 for permissible assumptions during emission 
measurements.
* * * * *
    (9) Determine C<INF>d</INF> and the lowest allowable 
[Delta]p<INF>CFV</INF> according to Sec.  1065.640.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, 
n<INF>ref</INF>. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for 
calculating n<INF>ref</INF>.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 16132]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03AP07.012


[[Page 16133]]


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    48. Section 1065.341 is amended by revising paragraph (g) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 full-flow 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 Sec.  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 in-line 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 pump-down 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:


Sec.  1065.350  H2O interference verification for CO2 NDIR analyzers.

* * * * *
    (c) System requirements. A CO<INF>2</INF> NDIR analyzer must have 
an H<INF>2</INF>O interference that is within (0 <plus-minus>400) 
[mu]mol/mol., though we strongly recommend a lower interference that is 
within (0 <plus-minus>200) [mu]mol/mol.
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
    (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO<INF>2</INF> NDIR analyzer 
as you would before an emission test.
    (2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling zero air that meets 
the specifications in Sec.  1065.750 through distilled water in a 
sealed vessel at (25 <plus-minus>10) [deg]C.
    (3) Downstream of the vessel, maintain the humidified test gas 
temperature at least 5 [deg] 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 <plus-minus>400) [mu]mol/mol.
* * * * *
    51. Section 1065.355 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and 
(e)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 CO<INF>2</INF> test gas by bubbling a 
CO<INF>2</INF> span gas through distilled water in a sealed vessel at 
(25 <plus-minus>10) [deg]C.
    (3) Downstream of the vessel, maintain the humidified gas 
temperature at least 5 [deg]C above its dewpoint. We recommend using a 
heated transfer line.
    (4) Introduce the humidified CO<INF>2</INF> test gas upstream of 
any sample dryer, if one is used during testing.

[[Page 16134]]

    (5) Measure the humidified CO<INF>2</INF> 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 CO<INF>2</INF> interference by multiplying this mean 
value (from paragraph (d)(7) of this section) by the ratio of expected 
CO<INF>2</INF> to span gas CO<INF>2</INF> concentration. In other 
words, estimate the flow-weighted mean dry concentration of 
CO<INF>2</INF> expected during testing, and then divide this value by 
the concentration of CO<INF>2</INF> 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 H<INF>2</INF>O interference by estimating the flow-
weighted mean concentration of H<INF>2</INF>O expected during testing, 
then divide this value by the concentration of H<INF>2</INF>O in the 
span gas used for this verification. Then multiply this ratio by the 
CO<INF>2</INF>-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 <plus-minus>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 CO<INF>2</INF> and H<INF>2</INF>O 
interference for your CO NDIR analyzer always affects your brake-
specific CO emission results within <plus-minus>0.5% of the applicable 
CO standard.
* * * * *
    52. Section 1065.360 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 (CH<INF>4</INF>) response factor after 
initial analyzer installation and after major maintenance as described 
in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (3) Verify the methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) 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 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> calibration gases that meet the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.750. For a FID that measures 
CH<INF>4</INF>, calibrate using CH<INF>4</INF> calibration gases that 
meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer 
zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O<INF>2</INF> expected during testing. If you use a 
FID to measure methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) downstream of a nonmethane 
cutter, you may calibrate that FID using CH<INF>4</INF> calibration 
gases with the cutter. Regardless of the calibration gas composition, 
calibrate on a carbon number basis of one (C<INF>1</INF>). For example, 
if you use a C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> span gas of concentration 200 
[mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. 
As another example, if you use a CH<INF>4</INF> span gas with a 
concentration of 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value 
of 200 [mu]mol/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 Sec.  1065.1010). Determine the optimum 
flow rates for FID fuel, burner air, and sample and record them for 
future reference.
    (d) THC FID CH<INF>4</INF> response factor determination. This 
procedure is only for FID analyzers that measure THC. Since FID 
analyzers generally have a different response to CH<INF>4</INF> versus 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>, determine each THC FID analyzer's 
CH<INF>4</INF> response factor, RF<INF>CH4</INF>, after FID 
optimization. Use the most recent RFCH<INF>4</INF> measured according 
to this section in the calculations for HC determination described in 
Sec.  1065.660 to compensate for CH<INF>4</INF> response. Determine 
RF<INF>CH4</INF> as follows, noting that you do not determine 
RFCH<INF>4</INF> for FIDs that are calibrated and spanned using 
CH<INF>4</INF> with a nonmethane cutter:
    (1) Select a C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> span gas concentration that 
you use to span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span 
gases that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Record the 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> concentration of the gas.
    (2) Select a CH<INF>4</INF> span gas concentration that you use to 
span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span gases that 
meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Record the CH<INF>4</INF> 
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 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>. Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one 
(C<INF>1</INF>). For example, if you use a C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> 
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with 
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
    (5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that you use for emission testing.
    (6) Span the FID with the C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> span gas that 
you selected under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (7) Introduce at the sample port of the FID analyzer, the 
CH<INF>4</INF> 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 CH<INF>4</INF> 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 CH<INF>4</INF> calibration gas. The result is the 
FID analyzer's response factor for CH<INF>4</INF>, RF<INF>CH4</INF>.
    (e) THC FID methane (CH<INF>4</INF>) response verification. This 
procedure is only for FID analyzers that measure THC. If the value of 
RF<INF>CH4</INF> from paragraph (d) of this section is within <plus-
minus>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 RF<INF>CH4</INF> was 1.05 and it changed by 
<plus-minus>0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed by -0.05 to become

[[Page 16135]]

1.00, either case would be acceptable because <plus-minus>4.8% is less 
than <plus-minus>5.0%. Verify RF<INF>CH4</INF> as follows:
    (1) First verify that the pressures and flow rates of FID fuel, 
burner air, and sample are each within <plus-minus>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 RF<INF>CH4</INF> as described in paragraph (d) of this 
section and verify that it is within the tolerance specified in this 
paragraph (e).
    (2) If RF<INF>CH4</INF> is not within the tolerance specified in 
this paragraph (e), re-optimize the FID response as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Determine a new RF<INF>CH4</INF> as described in paragraph (d) 
of this section. Use this new value of RF<INF>CH4</INF> in the 
calculations for HC determination, as described in Sec.  1065.660.
    53. Section 1065.362 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1065.362  Non-stoichiometric raw exhaust FID O2 interference 
verification.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Determine FID O<INF>2</INF> 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 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> concentration that you use to span your 
analyzers before emission testing. Use only span gases that meet the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.750. You may use CH<INF>4</INF> span 
reference gases for FIDs calibrated on CH<INF>4</INF> with a nonmethane 
cutter. Select the two balance gas concentrations such that the 
concentrations of O<INF>2</INF> and N<INF>2</INF> represent the minimum 
and maximum O<INF>2</INF> concentrations expected during testing.
    (2) Confirm that the FID analyzer meets all the specifications of 
Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 O<INF>2</INF> expected during testing. Record 
the mean response of 30 seconds of stabilized sample data as 
x<INF>O2minHC</INF>.
    (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 <plus-minus>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 O<INF>2</INF> expected during testing. Record 
the mean response of 30 seconds of stabilized sample data as 
x<INF>O2maxHC</INF>.
    (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 <plus-minus>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 x<INF>O2maxHC</INF> 
and its reference gas concentration. Calculate the percent difference 
between x<INF>O2minHC</INF> and its reference gas concentration. 
Determine the maximum percent difference of the two. This is the 
O<INF>2</INF> interference.
    (12) If the O<INF>2</INF> interference is within <plus-minus>1.5%, 
the FID passes the O<INF>2</INF> 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 O<INF>2</INF> 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 O<INF>2</INF> 
interference verification, you must re-verify RF<INF>CH4</INF> 
according to Sec.  1065.360. Repeat the O<INF>2</INF> interference 
verification after adjustment and RF<INF>CH4</INF> verification.
    (iv) Repair or replace the FID and repeat the O<INF>2</INF> 
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:


Sec.  1065.365  Nonmethane cutter penetration fractions.

    (a) Scope and frequency. If you use a FID analyzer and a nonmethane 
cutter (NMC) to measure methane (CH<INF>4</INF>), determine the 
nonmethane cutter's penetration fractions of methane, PF<INF>CH4</INF>, 
and ethane, PF<INF>C2H6</INF>. 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, PF<INF>CH4</INF>, of 1.000, and the penetration 
fraction for all other nonmethane hydrocarbons would be 0.000, as 
represented by PF<INF>C2H6</INF>. The emission calculations in Sec.  
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 
PF<INF>CH4</INF> >0.85 and a PF<INF>C2H6</INF> <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 Sec.  1065.660 
and Sec.  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 
CH<INF>4</INF> with the NMC, then span that FID with the NMC cutter 
using a CH<INF>4</INF> span gas, set the product of that FID's 
CH<INF>4</INF> response factor and CH<INF>4</INF> penetration fraction, 
RF<INF>CH4</INF> [middot] PF<INF>CH4</INF>, equal to 1.0 for all 
emission calculations, and determine its ethane 
(C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF>) penetration fraction, PF<INF>C2H6</INF> as 
follows:

[[Page 16136]]

    (1) Select a CH<INF>4</INF> gas mixture and a 
C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> analytical gas mixture and ensure that both 
mixtures meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Select a 
CH<INF>4</INF> concentration that you would use for spanning the FID 
during emission testing and select a C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> 
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 
Sec.  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 CH<INF>4</INF> 
span gas to span the FID with the cutter. Note that you must span the 
FID on a C<INF>1</INF> basis. For example, if your span gas has a 
CH<INF>4</INF> reference value of 100 [mu]mol/mol, the correct FID 
response to that span gas is 100 [mu]mol/mol because there is one 
carbon atom per CH<INF>4</INF> molecule.
    (6) Introduce the C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> 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 
C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF>, converted to a C<INF>1</INF> basis. The 
result is the C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> penetration fraction, 
PF<INF>C2H6</INF>. Use this penetration fraction and the product of the 
CH<INF>4</INF> response factor and CH<INF>4</INF> penetration fraction, 
RF<INF>CH4</INF> [middot] PF<INF>CH4</INF>, set to 1.0 in emission 
calculations according to Sec.  1065.660 or Sec.  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, 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>, by bypassing the NMC, determine penetration 
fractions as follows:
    (1) Select CH<INF>4</INF> and C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> analytical 
gas mixtures that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750 with the 
CH<INF>4</INF> concentration typical of its peak concentration expected 
at the hydrocarbon standard and the C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> 
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 
Sec.  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 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> span gas to span the FID. Note that you must 
span the FID on a C<INF>1</INF> basis. For example, if your span gas 
has a propane reference value of 100 [mu]mol/mol, the correct FID 
response to that span gas is 300 [mu]mol/mol because there are three 
carbon atoms per C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> molecule.
    (6) Introduce the C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> 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 C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> analytical gas mixture to the 
bypass, and repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(7) through (8) of this 
section.
    (10) Divide the mean C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> concentration 
measured through the nonmethane cutter by the mean concentration 
measured after bypassing the nonmethane cutter. The result is the 
C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> penetration fraction, PF<INF>C2H6</INF>. Use 
this penetration fraction according to Sec.  1065.660 or Sec.  
1065.665, as applicable.
    (11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (10) of this 
section, but with the CH<INF>4</INF> analytical gas mixture instead of 
C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF>. The result will be the CH<INF>4</INF> 
penetration fraction, PF<INF>CH4</INF>. Use this penetration fraction 
according to Sec.  1065.660 or Sec.  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, 
CH<INF>4</INF>, by bypassing the NMC, determine penetration fractions 
as follows:
    (1) Select CH<INF>4</INF> and C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> analytical 
gas mixtures that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750, with the 
CH<INF>4</INF> concentration typical of its peak concentration expected 
at the hydrocarbon standard and the C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> 
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 
Sec.  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 CH<INF>4</INF> span gas by bypassing the cutter. Note 
that you must span the FID on a C<INF>1</INF> basis. For example, if 
your span gas has a methane reference value of 100 [mu]mol/mol, the 
correct FID response to that span gas is 100 [mu]mol/mol because there 
is one carbon atom per CH<INF>4</INF> molecule.
    (6) Introduce the C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> 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 C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> analytical gas mixture to the 
bypass, and repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(7) and (8) of this 
section.
    (10) Divide the mean C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> concentration 
measured through the nonmethane cutter by the mean concentration 
measured after bypassing the nonmethane cutter. The result is the 
C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF> penetration fraction, PF<INF>C2H6</INF>. Use 
this penetration fraction according to Sec.  1065.660 or Sec.  
1065.665, as applicable.
    (11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (10) of this 
section, but with the CH<INF>4</INF> analytical gas mixture instead of 
C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF>. The result will be the CH<INF>4</INF> 
penetration fraction, PF<INF>CH4</INF>. Use this penetration fraction 
according to Sec.  1065.660 or Sec.  1065.665, as applicable.
    55. Section 1065.370 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and 
(g)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.370  CLD CO2 and H2O quench verification.

* * * * *
    (e) H2O quench verification procedure. Use the following method to 
determine H<INF>2</INF>O 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 NO<INF>X</INF>, operate the CLD in the NO-only 
operating mode.

[[Page 16137]]

    (3) Measure an NO calibration span gas that meets the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.750 and is near the maximum concentration 
expected during testing. Record this concentration, x<INF>NOdry</INF>.
    (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 [deg]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, T<INF>dew</INF>, and 
pressure, p<INF>total</INF>, 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 x<INF>NOmeas</INF>.
    (10) If your CLD is not equipped with a sample dryer, set 
x<INF>NOwet</INF> equal to x<INF>NOmeas</INF> from paragraph (e)(9) of 
this section.
    (11) If your CLD is equipped with a sample dryer, determine 
x<INF>NOwet</INF> from x<INF>NOmeas</INF> by correcting for the removed 
water according to Sec.  1065.645. Use the amount of water at the 
sample dryer outlet as x<INF>H2Omeas</INF> for this calculation. Refer 
to Sec.  1065.145(d)(2) and use the humidified gas dewpoint, 
T<INF>dew</INF>, and pressure, p<INF>total</INF>, to determine 
x<INF>H2O</INF>.
    (12) Use x<INF>NOwet</INF> to calculate the quench according to 
Sec.  1065.675.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering 
analysis that for your NO<INF>X</INF> sampling system and your emission 
calculations procedures, the combined CO<INF>2</INF> and H<INF>2</INF>O 
interference for your NO<INF>X</INF> CLD analyzer always affects your 
brake-specific NO<INF>X</INF> emission results within no more than 
<plus-minus>1.0% of the applicable NO<INF>X</INF> standard.
* * * * *
    56. Section 1065.372 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 NO<INF>X</INF> sampling system and your emission 
calculations procedures, the combined HC and H<INF>2</INF>O 
interference for your NO<INF>X</INF> NDUV analyzer always affects your 
brake-specific NO<INF>X</INF> emission results by less than 0.5% of the 
applicable NO<INF>X</INF> standard.
* * * * *
    57. Section 1065.376 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.376  Chiller NO2 penetration.

    (a) Scope and frequency. If you use a chiller to dry a sample 
upstream of a NO<INF>X</INF> measurement instrument, but you don't use 
an NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter upstream of the chiller, you must 
perform this verification for chiller NO<INF>2</INF> penetration. 
Perform this verification after initial installation and after major 
maintenance.
    (b) Measurement principles. A chiller removes water, which can 
otherwise interfere with a NO<INF>X</INF> measurement. However, liquid 
water remaining in an improperly designed chiller can remove 
NO<INF>2</INF> from the sample. If a chiller is used without an 
NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter upstream, it could remove NO<INF>2</INF> 
from the sample prior NO<INF>X</INF> measurement.
    (c) System requirements. A chiller must allow for measuring at 
least 95% of the total NO<INF>2</INF> at the maximum expected 
concentration of NO<INF>2</INF>.
    (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 NO<INF>X</INF> gas analyzer(s) as you would before emission 
testing.
    (ii) Select an NO<INF>2</INF> calibration gas, balance gas of dry 
air, that has an NO<INF>2</INF> concentration within <plus-minus>5% of 
the maximum NO<INF>2</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> response, accounting only for transport delays and 
instrument response.
    (iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds of recorded total 
NO<INF>X</INF> data and record this value as x<INF>NOxref</INF>.
    (v) Stop flowing the NO<INF>2</INF> calibration gas.
    (vi) Next saturate the sampling system by overflowing a dewpoint 
generator's output, set at a dewpoint of 50 [deg]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 NO<INF>2</INF> 
calibration gas used to establish x<INF>NOxref</INF>. Allow for 
stabilization of the total NO<INF>X</INF> response, accounting only for 
transport delays and instrument response. Calculate the mean of 30 
seconds of recorded total NO<INF>X</INF> data and record this value as 
x<INF>NOxmeas</INF>.
    (viii) Correct x<INF>NOxmeas</INF> to x<INF>NOxdry</INF> based upon 
the residual water vapor that passed through the chiller at the 
chiller's outlet temperature and pressure.
    (3) Performance evaluation. If x<INF>NOxdry</INF> is less than 95% 
of x<INF>NOxref</INF>, 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 NO<INF>X</INF> sampling system and your emission 
calculations procedures, the chiller always affects your brake-specific 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission results by less than 0.5% of the applicable 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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:


Sec.  1065.378  NO2-to-NO converter conversion verification.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Use the following procedure to verify the 
performance of a NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter:
    (1) Instrument setup. Follow the analyzer and NO<INF>2</INF>-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 
NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter inlet to the last port.
    (3) Adjustments. Take the following steps to make adjustments:
    (i) With the NO<INF>2</INF>-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 
NO<INF>X</INF> concentration expected during testing.

[[Page 16138]]

    (ii) With the NO<INF>2</INF>-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 NO<INF>2</INF> expected during testing. This 
ensures that the ozonator is generating NO<INF>2</INF> at the maximum 
concentration expected during testing.
    (4) Data collection. Maintain the ozonator adjustment in paragraph 
(d)(3) of this section, and keep the NO<INF>X</INF> analyzer in the NO 
only mode (i.e., bypass the NO<INF>2</INF>-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 x<INF>NOxref</INF>.
    (iii) Switch the analyzer to the total NO<INF>X</INF> mode (that 
is, sample with the NO<INF>2</INF>-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 x<INF>NOxmeas</INF>.
    (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 x<INF>NOxref</INF>.
    (5) Performance evaluation. Divide the quantity of 
(x<INF>NOxmeas</INF> -x<INF>NOref</INF>) by the quantity of 
(x<INF>NOref</INF> -x<INF>NOref</INF>). If the result is less than 95%, 
repair or replace the NO<INF>2</INF>-to-NO converter.
    (e) * * *
    (1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering 
analysis that for your NO<INF>X</INF> sampling system and your emission 
calculations procedures, the converter always affects your brake-
specific NO<INF>X</INF> emission results by less than 0.5% of the 
applicable NO<INF>X</INF> standard.
* * * * *
    59. Section 1065.390 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(8) and 
(d)(9) and adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:

[[Page 16139]]

    (1) Transient cycles. Transient duty cycles are typically specified 
in the standard-setting part as a second-by-second 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:


Sec.  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 standard-setting 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.210. 
This may involve configuring initial states of charge and rates and 
times of auxiliary-work 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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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 in-use 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 
<plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>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., 
discrete-mode 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

[[Page 16140]]

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 <plus-minus>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 Sec.  
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 standard-
setting 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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:


Sec.  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, <INF>[fnof]ntest</INF>, 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, <INF>[fnof]nref</INF>. Note that 
the cycle-validation criteria in Sec.  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,

[[Page 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, 
T<INF>ref</INF>. Section 1065.610 also describes under what conditions 
you may command T<INF>ref</INF> greater than the reference torque you 
calculated from a normalized duty cycle. This provision permits you to 
command T<INF>ref</INF> 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 cycle-validation criteria in Sec.  
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, T<INF>test</INF>. Section 1065.610 describes how to transform 
normalized torques into a sequence of reference torques, 
T<INF>ref</INF>. Section 1065.610 also describes under what conditions 
you may command T<INF>ref</INF> 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, 
<INF>[fnof]ntest.</INF> Section 1065.610 describes how to transform 
these normalized values into a sequence of reference powers, 
P<INF>ref</INF>. 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 ramped-
modal). 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 Sec.  1065.510 or 
simulate the in-use operation of a governor the same way you simulated 
it to map the engine in Sec.  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, ramped-modal). 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 Sec.  1065.514.
    65. Section 1065.514 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 cycle-validation 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 Sec.   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% [middot]
                                                    Tmax mapped) < T <
                                                    Tref + (2% [middot]
                                                    Tmax mapped).
minimum.......................  power and either   fn > fnref or T >
                                 torque or speed.   Tref but not if fn >
                                                    fnref and T > Tref.
maximum.......................  power and either   fn < fnref or T <
                                 torque or speed.   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% [middot]
                                                    Pmax mapped) < P <
                                                    Pref + (2 % [middot]
                                                    Pmax mapped).
minimum.......................  power and either   fn > fnref or P >
                                 torque or speed.   Pref but not if fn >
                                                    fnref and P > Pref.

[[Page 16142]]

 
maximum.......................  power and either   fn < fnref or P <
                                 torque or speed.   Pref but not if fn <
                                                    fref and P < Pref.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Statistical parameters. Use the remaining points to calculate 
regression statistics described in Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.514 
for the default criteria and refer to the standard-setting part to 
determine if there are other criteria for your engine. Calculate the 
following regression statistics:
    (1) Slopes for feedback speed, a<INF>1fn</INF>, feedback torque, 
a<INF>1T</INF>, and feedback power a<INF>1P</INF>.
    (2) Intercepts for feedback speed, a<INF>0fn</INF>, feedback 
torque, a<INF>0T</INF>, and feedback power a<INF>0P</INF>.
    (3) Standard estimates of error for feedback speed, 
SEE<INF>fn</INF>, feedback torque, SEE<INF>T</INF>, and feedback power 
SEE<INF>P</INF>.
    (4) Coefficients of determination for feedback speed, 
r<SUP>2</SUP><INF>fn</INF>, feedback torque, r<SUP>2</SUP><INF>T</INF>, 
and feedback power r<SUP>2</SUP><INF>P</INF>.
    (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 Sec.   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,           <= 10% of warm idle....  <= 2.0% of maximum       <= 2.0% of maximum
 [bond]a0[bond].                                                 mapped torque.           mapped power.
Standard error of estimate, SEE......  <= 5.0% of maximum test  <= 10% of maximum        <= 10% of maximum
                                        speed.                   mapped torque.           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:


Sec.  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) [deg]C.
    (2) Intake air temperature of (20 to 30) [deg]C upstream of all 
engine components.
    (3) Atmospheric pressure of (80.000 to 103.325) kPa and within 
<plus-minus>5% of the value recorded at the time of the last engine 
map.
    (4) Dilution air conditions as specified in Sec.  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 [mu]mol/mol.
* * * * *
    67. Section 1065.525 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 warm-up before emission sampling 
begins, restart the engine and continue warm-up.
    (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 discrete-mode 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 Sec.  1065.530(b).
    (iii) Precondition the engine by operating at the previous mode for

[[Page 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 standard-setting 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.520(f):
    (i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut down the engine. Unless the 
standard-setting 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 [deg]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 
[deg]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 Sec.  1065.10(c)(1)). You 
may start a cold-start duty cycle when the temperatures of an engine's 
lubricant, coolant, and aftertreatment systems are all between (20 and 
30) [deg]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 hot-stabilized 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 <plus-minus>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 hot-stabilized 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 <plus-minus>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 
data-collection 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.750. Span FID 
analyzers on a carbon number basis of one (1), C<INF>1</INF>. For 
example, if you use a C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> span gas of 
concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 
600 [mu]mol/mol. Span FID analyzers consistently with the determination 
of their respective response factors, RF, and penetration fractions, 
PF, according to Sec.  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 
re-zero, 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 ramped-modal 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.

[[Page 16144]]

    (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 
Sec.  1065.545. Void any samples that did not maintain proportional 
sampling according to Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.550.
    (h) Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, determine 
whether or not the test meets the cycle-validation criteria in Sec.  
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 re-map 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.10(c).
    69. Section 1065.545 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 <plus-minus>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 <plus-minus>2% of the mean or target 
absolute temperature over each test interval.
* * * * *
    70. Section 1065.550 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 
brake-specific 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 Sec.  1065.672. Use the two sets of 
brake-specific emission results as follows:
    (1) If the difference between the corrected and uncorrected brake-
specific emissions are within <plus-minus>4% of the uncorrected results 
or within <plus-minus>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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.190. A PM sample is stabilized as long as it has been in 
the PM-stabilization environment for one of the following durations, 
during which the stabilization environment has been within the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.190:
    (1) If you expect that a filter's total surface concentration of PM 
will be greater than about 0.5 [mu]g/mm<SUP>2</SUP>, 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 [mu]g/mm<SUP>2</SUP>, 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.

[[Page 16145]]

    (4) Note that 0.5 [mu]g/mm<SUP>2</SUP> is approximately equal to 
567 [mu]g 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[middot]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:


Sec.  1065.610  Duty cycle generation.

* * * * *
    (b) Maximum test torque, Ttest. For constant-speed engines, 
determine the measured T<INF>test</INF> from the power-versus-speed 
map, generated according to Sec.  1065.510, as follows:
    (1) Based on the map, determine maximum power, P<INF>max</INF>, and 
the speed at which maximum power occurs, f<INF>nPmax</INF>. Divide 
every recorded power by P<INF>max</INF> and divide every recorded speed 
by f<INF>nPmax</INF>. The result is a normalized power-versus-speed 
map. Your measured T<INF>test</INF> 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:


Sec.  1065.650  Emission calculations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *

Where:

[Delta]t = 1/f<INF>record</INF> Eq. 1065.650-5
* * * * *
    76. Section 1065.655 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 
introductory text and (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  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, x<INF>H2O</INF>, fraction of dilution air in 
diluted exhaust, x<INF>dil</INF>, and the amount of products on a 
C<INF>1</INF> basis per dry mole of dry measured flow, 
x<INF>Cproddry</INF>. For each emission concentration, x, and amount of 
water, x<INF>H2O</INF>, you must determine their completely dry 
concentrations, x<INF>dry</INF> and x<INF>H2Odry</INF>. You must also 
use your fuel's atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, [alpha], and oxygen-
to-carbon ratio, [beta]. For your fuel, you may measure [alpha] and 
[beta] or you may use the default values in Table 1 of Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.130(i).
* * * * *

Subpart H--[Amended]

    77. Section 1065.701 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 
introductory text and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 standard-setting 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 Sec.   1065.701.--Examples of Service-Accumulation and Field-Testing Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fuel category                       Subcategory                     Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel...............................  Light distillate and light     ASTM D975-04c
                                        blends with residual.
                                       Middle distillate............  ASTM D6751-03a
                                       Biodiesel (B100).............  ASTM D6985-04a
Intermediate and residual fuel.......  All..........................  See Sec.   1065.705
Gasoline.............................  Motor vehicle gasoline.......  ASTM D4814-04b
                                       Minor oxygenated gasoline      ASTM D4814-04b
                                        blends.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010.

    78. Section 1065.703 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.703  Distillate diesel fuel.

* * * * *

[[Page 16146]]



                                    Table 1 of Sec.   1065.703.--Test Fuel Specifications for Distillate Diesel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Ultra low
                  Item                              Units                 sulfur        Low sulfur      High sulfur        Reference  procedure \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetane Number..........................  ...........................           40-50           40-50           40-50  ASTM D 613-03b
Distillation range.....................  [deg]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............................  [deg]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  g/kg.......................             100             100             100  ASTM D 5186-03
     paraffins, naphthalenes, and
     olefins).
Flashpoint, min........................  [deg]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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

    79. Section 1065.705 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.   1065.705.--Service Accumulation and Test Fuel Specifications for Residual Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Category ISO-F-
             Characteristic                        Unit           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [deg]C, max..............  kg/m\3\.................    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
                                                                                                           8217:200
                                                                                                              5(E)
                                                                                                             7.1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinematic viscosity at 50 [deg]C, max..  cSt.....................         30.0            80.0          180.0
                                                        380.0
                                                             700.0                         ISO
                                                                                       3104:199
                                                                                            4/Cor
                                                                                       1:1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash point, min.......................  [deg]C..................          60               60           60
                                                         60
                                                              60                       ISO 2719
                                                                                          (see
                                                                                       also ISO
                                                                                       8217:200
                                                                                          5(E)
                                                                                         7.2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pour point (upper) Winter quality, max.  [deg]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.............................  (m\3\/m\3\)%............          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
                                                                                       8217:200
                                                                                          5(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
                                                                                       8217:200
                                                                                          5(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
                                                                                       8217:200
                                                                                          5(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).

[[Page 16147]]

 
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 Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

    80. Section 1065.710 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.710  Gasoline.

* * * * *

                                           Table 1 of Sec.   1065.710.--Test Fuel Specifications for Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Low-temperature
                Item                           Units               General testing              testing                  Reference procedure \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Range..................  [deg]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....................  60.0-63.4\2\ \3\.......  77.2-81.4.............  ASTM D 323-99a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
\2\ For 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 [deg]C.
\3\ For 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.   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.
Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2)........  Maximum, 0.051.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All parameters are based on the reference procedures in ASTM D 1945-
  03 (incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010). See Sec.
  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 
standard-setting 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.   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

[[Page 16148]]

 
Vapor pressure at 38[deg]C.............  Maximum, 1400 kPa.........  ASTM D 1267-02 or 2598-022
Volatility residue (evaporated           Maximum, -38[deg]C........  ASTM D 1837-02a
 temperature, 35 [deg]C).
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     Maximum, 0.05 ml pass3....  ASTM D 2158-04
 100) ml oil stain observ.).
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed
  procedures.
\2\ If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D 1267-02.
\3\ The 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 
standard-setting 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:


Sec.  1065.750  Analytical Gases.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Use the following gases with a FID analyzer:
    (i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated H<INF>2</INF> 
concentration of (0.400 <plus-minus>0.004) mol/mol, balance He, and a 
stated total hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 [mu]mol/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 flame-ionization detectors with purified 
gas that meets the specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 
except that the purified gas O<INF>2</INF> 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 flow-weighted mean concentration 
of O<INF>2</INF> expected during testing.
    (iv) FID propane span gas. Span and calibrate THC FID with span 
concentrations of propane, C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>. Calibrate on a 
carbon number basis of one (C<INF>1</INF>). For example, if you use a 
C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF> span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, 
span a FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/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 flow-weighted mean concentration of O<INF>2</INF> 
expected during testing. If the expected exhaust O<INF>2</INF> 
concentration is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of purified 
nitrogen.
    (v) FID methane span gas. If you always span and calibrate a 
CH<INF>4</INF> FID with a nonmethane cutter, then span and calibrate 
the FID with span concentrations of methane, CH<INF>4</INF>. Calibrate 
on a carbon number basis of one (C<INF>1</INF>). For example, if you 
use a CH<INF>4</INF> span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span a 
FID to respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/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 flow-weighted mean concentration of O<INF>2</INF> 
expected during testing. If the expected exhaust O<INF>2</INF> 
concentration is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of purified 
nitrogen.
    (3) Use the following gas mixtures, with gases traceable within 
<plus-minus>1.0% of the NIST accepted value or other gas standards we 
approve:
    (i) CH<INF>4</INF>, balance purified synthetic air and/or 
N<INF>2</INF> (as applicable).
    (ii) C<INF>2</INF>H<INF>6</INF>, balance purified synthetic air 
and/or N<INF>2</INF> (as applicable).
    (iii) C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>, balance purified synthetic air 
and/or N<INF>2</INF> (as applicable).
    (iv) CO, balance purified N<INF>2</INF>.
    (v) CO<INF>2</INF>, balance purified N<INF>2</INF>.
    (vi) NO, balance purified N<INF>2</INF>.
    (vii) NO<INF>2</INF>, balance purified synthetic air.
    (viii) O<INF>2</INF>, balance purified N<INF>2</INF>.
    (ix) C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>, CO, CO<INF>2</INF>, NO, balance 
purified N<INF>2</INF>.
    (x) C<INF>3</INF>H<INF>8</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, CO, CO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO, balance purified N<INF>2</INF>.
    (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 <plus-minus>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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  1065.901  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) Laboratory testing. You may use PEMS for any testing in a 
laboratory or

[[Page 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:


Sec.  1065.905  General provisions.

* * * * *
    (e) Laboratory testing using PEMS. You may use PEMS for testing in 
a laboratory as described in Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 [deg]C for flexible connectors. You may use 
connectors with a spring-steel wire helix for support and you may use 
Nomex<SUP>TM</SUP> 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 manufacturer-
specified 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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.905(b), the 
specifications in the following table apply instead of the 
specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  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 field-

[[Page 16150]]

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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.307, to calibrate 
and verify PEMS. Note that a PEMS does not have to meet the system-
response specifications of Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.  1065.201.
    Regression statistics means any of the regression statistics 
specified in Sec.  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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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 Sec.   1065.1010.--ISO Materials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Part 1065
                   Document No. and name                      reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 14644-1, Cleanrooms and associated controlled               1065.190
 environments..............................................
ISO 8217:2005, Petroleum products--Fuels (class F)--            1065.705
 Specifications of marine fuels............................
ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum and liquid petroleum             1065.705
 products--Laboratory determination of density--Hydrometer
 method....................................................
ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001, Crude petroleum and petroleum        1065.705
 products--Determination of density--Oscillating U-tube
 method....................................................
ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997, Petroleum products--Transparent       1065.705
 and opaque liquids--Determination of kinematic viscosity
 and calculation of dynamic viscosity......................
ISO 2719:2002, Determination of flash point--Pensky-Martens     1065.705
 closed cup method.........................................
ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum products--Determination of pour        1065.705
 point.....................................................
ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996, Petroleum products--                 1065.705
 Determination of carbon residue--Micro method.............
ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum products--Determination of ash....     1065.705
ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum products and bituminous materials--    1065.705
 Determination of water--Distillation method...............
ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum products--Determination of sulfur      1065.705
 content--Energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
ISO 14596:1998/Cor 1:1999, Petroleum products--                 1065.705
 Determination of sulfur content--Wavelength-dispersive X-
 ray fluorescence spectrometry.............................
ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum products--Determination of            1065.705
 vanadium and nickel content--Wavelength-dispersive X-ray
 fluorescence spectrometry.................................
ISO 10307-2:1993, Petroleum products--Total sediment in         1065.705
 residual fuel oils--Part 2: Determination using standard
 procedures for aging......................................

[[Page 16151]]

 
ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum products--Determination of            1065.705
 aluminum and silicon in fuel oils--Inductively coupled
 plasma emission and atomic absorption spectroscopy methods
IP-470, Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, calcium,     1065.705
 zinc and sodium in residual fuels, by AAS finish..........
IP-500 Phosphorus content of residual fuels by ultra-violet     1065.705
 spectrometry..............................................
IP-501 Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium,       1065.705
 calcium, zinc and phosphorus in residual fuel oil, by ICP
 finish....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (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 Sec.   1065.1010.--Institute of Petroleum Materials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Part 1065
                   Document No. and name                      reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP-470, Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, calcium,     1065.705
 zinc and sodium in residual fuels, by AAS finish..........
IP-500 Phosphorus content of residual fuels by ultra-violet     1065.705
 spectrometry..............................................
IP-501 Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium,       1065.705
 calcium, zinc and phosphorus in residual fuel oil, by ICP
 finish....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:


Sec.  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 compression-ignition 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 off-highway 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>