Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder, 15938-16151 [07-1107]
Download as PDF
15938
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 92, 94, 1033, 1039, 1042,
1065 and 1068
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0190; FRL–8285–5]
RIN 2006–AM06
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution
From Locomotive Engines and Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines Less
Than 30 Liters per Cylinder
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Locomotives and marine
diesel engines are important
contributors to our nation’s air pollution
today. These sources are projected to
continue to generate large amounts of
particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) emissions that contribute
to nonattainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone across the
United States. The emissions of PM and
ozone precursors from these engines are
associated with serious public health
problems including premature
mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, aggravation of
existing asthma, acute respiratory
symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and
decreased lung function. In addition,
emissions from locomotives and marine
diesel engines are of particular concern,
as diesel exhaust has been classified by
EPA as a likely human carcinogen.
EPA is proposing a comprehensive
program to dramatically reduce
emissions from locomotives and marine
diesel engines. It would apply new
exhaust emission standards and idle
reduction requirements to diesel
locomotives of all types—line-haul,
switch, and passenger. It would also set
new exhaust emission standards for all
types of marine diesel engines below 30
liters per cylinder displacement. These
include marine propulsion engines used
on vessels from recreational and small
fishing boats to super-yachts, tugs and
Great Lakes freighters, and marine
auxiliary engines ranging from small
gensets to large generators on oceangoing vessels. The proposed program
includes a set of near-term emission
standards for newly-built engines. These
would phase in starting in 2009. The
near-term program also contains more
stringent emissions standards for
existing locomotives. These would
apply when the locomotive is
remanufactured and would take effect as
soon as certified remanufacture systems
are available (as early as 2008), but no
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
later than 2010 (2013 for Tier 2
locomotives). We are requesting
comment on an alternative under
consideration that would apply a
similar requirement to existing marine
diesel engines when they are
remanufactured. We are also proposing
long-term emissions standards for
newly-built locomotives and marine
diesel engines based on the application
of high-efficiency catalytic
aftertreatment technology. These
standards would phase in beginning in
2015 for locomotives and 2014 for
marine diesel engines. We estimate PM
reductions of 90 percent and NOX
reductions of 80 percent from engines
meeting these standards, compared to
engines meeting the current standards.
We project that by 2030, this program
would reduce annual emissions of NOX
and PM by 765,000 and 28,000 tons,
respectively. These reductions are
estimated to annually prevent 1,500
premature deaths, 170,000 work days
lost, and 1,000,000 minor restrictedactivity days. The estimated annual
monetized health benefits of this rule in
2030 would be approximately $12
billion, assuming a 3 percent discount
rate (or $11 billion assuming a 7 percent
discount rate). These estimates would
be increased substantially if we were to
adopt the remanufactured marine
engine program concept. The annual
cost of the proposed program in 2030
would be significantly less, at
approximately $600 million.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 2, 2007. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on
the information collection provisions
must be received by OMB on or before
May 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2003–0190, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Fax: (202) 566–1741
• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In addition,
please mail a copy of your comments on
the information collection provisions to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC,
20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
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 https://
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,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.’’
15939
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John
Mueller, U.S. EPA, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division
(ASD), Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214–4275; fax number: (734) 214–
4816; e-mail address:
Mueller.John@epa.gov, or Assessment
and Standards Division Hotline;
telephone number: (734) 214–4636.
General Information
o Does This Action Apply to Me?
o Locomotive
Entities potentially regulated by this
action are those which manufacture,
remanufacture and/or import
locomotives and/or locomotive engines;
and those which own and operate
locomotives. Regulated categories and
entities include:
Category
NAICS Code 1
Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry .........................
333618, 336510 ...................................
Industry .........................
Industry .........................
482110, 482111, 482112 .....................
488210 .................................................
Manufacturers, remanufacturers and importers of locomotives and locomotive
engines.
Railroad owners and operators.
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
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
1 North
o Marine
manufacture, sell, or import into the
United States new marine compressionignition engines, companies and
persons that rebuild or maintain these
engines, companies and persons that
make vessels that use such engines, and
the owners/operators of such vessels.
Affected categories and entities include:
This proposed action would affect
companies and persons that
NAICS Code 1
Examples of potentially affected entities
333618 .................................................
33661 and 346611 ...............................
811310 .................................................
483 .......................................................
336612 .................................................
Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines.
Ship and boat building; ship building and repairing.
Engine repair, remanufacture, and maintenance.
Water transportation, freight and passenger.
Boat building (watercraft not built in shipyards and typically of the type suitable or intended for personal use).
Category
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
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.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
o Additional Information About This
Rulemaking
The current emission standards for
locomotive engines were adopted by
EPA in 1998 (see 63 FR 18978, April 16,
1998). This notice of proposed
rulemaking relies in part on information
that was obtained for that rule, which
can be found in Public Docket A–94–31.
That docket is incorporated by reference
into the docket for this action, OAR–
2003–0190.
marine 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.
o Marine
o Other Dockets
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
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–
o Locomotive
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15940
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
0012).1 2 Those dockets are incorporated
by reference into the docket for this
action, OAR–2003–0190.
Outline of This Preamble
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
I. Overview
This proposal is an important step in
EPA’s ongoing National Clean Diesel
Campaign (NCDC). In recent years, we
have adopted major new programs
designed to reduce emissions from
highway and nonroad diesel engines.3
When fully implemented, these new
programs would largely eliminate
emissions of harmful pollutants from
these sources. This Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) sets out the next
step in this ambitious effort by
addressing two additional diesel sectors
that are major sources of air pollution
nationwide: locomotive engines and
marine diesel engines below 30 liters
per cylinder displacement.4 This
addresses all types of diesel
locomotives— line-haul, switch, and
passenger rail, and all types of marine
diesel engines below 30 liters per
cylinder displacement (hereafter
collectively called ‘‘marine diesel
engines.’’). These include marine
propulsion engines used on vessels from
recreational and small fishing boats to
super-yachts, tugs and Great Lakes
freighters, and marine auxiliary engines
ranging from small gensets to large
generators on ocean-going vessels.5
Emission levels for locomotive and
marine diesel engines remain at high
levels—comparable to the emissions
standards for highway trucks in the
early 1990s—and emit high level of
pollutants that contribute to unhealthy
air in many areas of the U.S. Nationally,
in 2007 these engines account for about
20 percent of mobile source NOX
emissions and 25 percent of mobile
source diesel PM2.5 emissions. Absent
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 https://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 (https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
new emissions standards, we expect
overall emissions from these engines to
remain relatively flat over the next 10 to
15 years due to existing regulations such
as lower fuel sulfur requirements and
the phase-in of locomotive and marine
diesel Tier 1 and Tier 2 engine
standards but starting in about 2025
emissions from these engines would
begin to grow. Under today’s proposed
program, by 2030, annual NOX
emissions from locomotive and marine
diesel engines would be reduced by
765,000 tons and PM2.5 and 28,000 tons.
Without new controls, by 2030, these
engines would become a large portion of
the total mobile source emissions
inventory constituting 35 percent of
mobile source NOX emissions and 65
percent of diesel PM emissions.
We followed certain principles when
developing the elements of this
proposal. First, the program must
achieve sizeable reductions in PM and
NOX emissions as early as possible.
Second, as we did in the 2007 highway
diesel and clean nonroad diesel
programs, we are considering engines
and fuels together as a system to
maximize emissions reductions in a
highly cost-effective manner. The
groundwork for this systems approach
was laid in the 2004 nonroad diesel
final rule which mandated that
locomotive and marine diesel fuel
comply with the 15 parts per million
sulfur cap for ultra-low sulfur diesel
fuel (ULSD) by 2012, in anticipation of
this rulemaking (69 FR 38958, June 29,
2004). The costs, benefits, and other
impacts of the locomotive and marine
diesel fuel regulation are covered in the
2004 rulemaking and are not duplicated
here. Lastly, we are proposing standards
and implementation schedules that take
full advantage of the efforts now being
expended to develop advanced
emissions control technologies for the
highway and nonroad sectors. As
discussed throughout this proposal, the
proposed standards represent a feasible
progression in the application of
advanced technologies, providing a
cost-effective program with very large
public health and welfare benefits.
The proposal consists of a three-part
program. First, we are proposing more
stringent standards for existing
locomotives that would apply when
they are remanufactured. The proposed
remanufactured locomotive program
would take effect as soon as certified
remanufacture systems are available (as
early as 2008), but no later than 2010
(2013 for Tier 2 locomotives). We are
also requesting comment on an
alternative under consideration that
would apply a similar requirement to
existing marine diesel engines when
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15941
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
they are remanufactured. Second, we
are proposing a set of near-term
emission standards, referred to as Tier 3,
for newly-built locomotives and marine
engines, that reflect the application of
technologies to reduce engine-out PM
and NOX. Third, we are proposing
longer-term standards, referred to as
Tier 4, that reflect the application of
high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment
technology enabled by the availability of
ULSD. These standards phase in over
time, beginning in 2014. We are also
proposing provisions to eliminate
emissions from unnecessary locomotive
idling.
Locomotives and marine diesel
engines designed to these proposed
standards would achieve PM reductions
of 90 percent and NOX reductions of 80
percent, compared to engines meeting
the current Tier 2 standards. The
proposed standards would also yield
sizeable reductions in emissions of
nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC),
carbon monoxide (CO), and hazardous
compounds known as air toxics. Table
I–1 summarizes the PM and NOX
emission reductions for the proposed
standards compared to today’s (Tier 2)
emission standards or, in the case of
remanufactured locomotives, compared
to the current standards for each tier of
locomotives covered.
TABLE I.–1.—REDUCTIONS FROM LEVELS OF EXISTING STANDARDS
Sector
Proposed standards tier
Locomotives ..........................................
Remanufactured Tier 0 ......................................................................................
Remanufactured Tier 1 ......................................................................................
Remanufactured Tier 2 ......................................................................................
Tier 3 ..................................................................................................................
Tier 4 ..................................................................................................................
Remanufactured Engines b .................................................................................
Tier 3 ..................................................................................................................
Tier 4 ..................................................................................................................
Marine Diesel Engines a .......................
PM
NOX
60%
50
50
50
90
25–60
50
90
15–20%
80
up to 20
20
80
a Existing
and proposed standards vary by displacement and within power categories. Reductions indicated are typical.
proposal asks for comment on an alternative under consideration that would reduce emissions from existing marine diesel engines. See
section VII.A(2).
b This
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Combined, these reductions would
result in substantial benefits to public
health and welfare and to the
environment. We project that by 2030
this program would reduce annual
emissions of NOX and PM by 765,000
and 28,000 tons, respectively, and the
magnitude of these reductions would
continue to grow well beyond 2030. We
estimate that these annual emission
reductions would prevent 1,500
premature mortalities in 2030. These
annual emission reductions are also
estimated to prevent 1,000,000 minor
restricted-activity days, 170,000 work
days lost, and other quantifiable
benefits. All told, the estimated
monetized health benefits of this rule in
2030 would be approximately $12
billion, assuming a 3 percent discount
rate (or $11 billion assuming a 7 percent
discount rate). The annual cost of the
program in 2030 would be significantly
less, at approximately $600 million.
A. What Is EPA Proposing?
This proposal is a further step in
EPA’s ongoing program to control
emissions from diesel engines,
including those used in marine vessels
and locomotives. EPA’s current
standards for newly-built and
remanufactured locomotives were
adopted in 1998 and were implemented
in three tiers (Tiers 0, 1, and 2) over
2000 through 2005. The current program
includes Tier 0 emission limits for
existing locomotives originally
manufactured in 1973 or later, that
apply when they are remanufactured.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
The standards for marine diesel engines
were adopted in 1998 for engines under
37 kilowatts (kW), in 1999 for
commercial marine engines, and in 2002
for recreational marine engines. These
various Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards
phase in from 1999 through 2009,
depending on engine size and
application. The most stringent of these
existing locomotive and marine diesel
engine standards are similar in
stringency to EPA’s nonroad Tier 2
standards that are now in the process of
being replaced by Tier 3 and 4
standards.
The major elements of the proposal
are summarized below. We are also
proposing revised testing, certification,
and compliance provisions to better
ensure emissions control in use.
Detailed provisions and our
justifications for them are discussed in
sections III and IV and in the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
Section VII of this preamble describes a
number of alternatives that we
considered in developing this proposal,
including a more simplistic approach
that would introduce aftertreatmentbased standards earlier. Our analysis
shows that such an approach would
result in higher emissions and fewer
health and welfare benefits than we
project will be realized from the
program we are proposing today. After
evaluating the alternatives, we believe
that our proposed program provides the
best opportunity for achieving timely
and very substantial emissions
reductions from locomotive and marine
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
diesel engines. It best takes into account
the need for appropriate lead time to
develop and apply the technologies
necessary to meet these emission
standards, the goal of achieving very
significant emissions reductions as early
as possible, the interaction of
requirements in this proposal with
existing highway and nonroad diesel
engine programs, and other legal and
policy considerations.
Overall, this comprehensive threepart approach to setting standards for
locomotives and marine diesel engines
would provide very large reductions in
PM, NOX, and toxic compounds, both in
the near-term (as early as 2008), and in
the long-term. These reductions would
be achieved in a manner that: (1) Is very
cost-effective, (2) leverages technology
developments in other diesel sectors, (3)
aligns well with the clean diesel fuel
requirements already being
implemented, and (4) provides the lead
time needed to deal with the significant
engineering design workload that is
involved. We are asking for comments
on all aspects of the proposal, including
standards levels and implementation
dates, and on the alternatives discussed
in this proposal.
(1) Locomotive Emission Standards
We are proposing stringent exhaust
emissions standards for newly-built and
remanufactured locomotives, furthering
the initiative for cleaner locomotives
started in 2004 with the establishment
of the ULSD locomotive fuel program,
and adding this important category of
engines to the highway and nonroad
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15942
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
diesel applications already covered
under EPA’s National Clean Diesel
Campaign.6
In the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) for this proposal
(69 FR 39276, June 29, 2004), we
suggested a program for comment that
would bring about the introduction of
high-efficiency exhaust aftertreatment to
this sector in a single step. Although it
has taken longer than expected to
develop, the proposal we are issuing
today is far more comprehensive than
we envisioned in 2004. Informed by
extensive analyses documented in the
draft RIA and numerous discussions
with stakeholders since then, this
proposal goes significantly beyond that
vision. It sets out standards for
locomotives in three steps to more fully
leverage the opportunities provided by
both the already-established clean fuel
programs, and the migration of clean
diesel technology from the highway and
nonroad sectors. It also addresses the
large and long-lived existing locomotive
fleet with stringent new emissions
requirements at remanufacture starting
in 2008. Finally, it sets new
requirements for idle emissions control
on newly-built and remanufactured
locomotives.
Briefly, for newly-built line-haul
locomotives we are proposing a new
Tier 3 PM standard of 0.10 grams per
brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr),
based on improvements to existing
engine designs. This standard would
take effect in 2012. We are also
proposing new Tier 4 standards of 0.03
g/bhp-hr for PM and 1.3 g/bhp-hr for
NOX, based on the evolution of highefficiency catalytic aftertreatment
technologies now being developed and
introduced in the highway diesel sector.
The Tier 4 standards would take effect
in 2015 and 2017 for PM and NOX,
respectively. We are proposing that
remanufactured Tier 2 locomotives meet
a PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, based
on the same engine design
improvements as Tier 3 locomotives,
and that remanufactured Tier 0 and Tier
1 locomotives meet a 0.22 g/bhp-hr PM
standard. We also propose that
remanufactured Tier 0 locomotives meet
a NOX standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr, the
same level as current Tier 1
locomotives, or 8.0 g/bhp-hr if the
6 We are not proposing any change to the current
definition of a ‘‘new locomotive’’ in 40 CFR § 92.2.
The terms ‘‘new locomotive’’, ‘‘new locomotive
engine’’, ‘‘freshly manufactured locomotive’’,
‘‘freshly manufactured locomotive engine’’,
‘‘repower’’, ‘‘remanufacture’’, ‘‘remanufactured
locomotive’’, and ‘‘remanufactured locomotive
engine’’ all have formal definitions in 40 CFR 92.2.
In this notice, the term ‘‘newly-built locomotive’’ is
synonymous with ‘‘freshly manufactured
locomotive’’.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Taken together, the proposed
elements described above constitute a
comprehensive program that would
address the problems caused by
locomotive emissions from both a nearterm and long-term perspective, and do
so more completely than would have
occurred under the concept described in
the ANPRM. It would do this while
providing for an orderly and costeffective implementation schedule for
the railroads, builders, and
remanufacturers.
(2) Marine Engine Emission Standards
We are also proposing emissions
standards for newly-built marine diesel
engines with displacements under 30
liters per cylinder (referred to as
Category 1 and 2, or C1 and C2,
engines). This would include engines
used in commercial, recreational, and
auxiliary power applications, and those
below 37 kW (50 hp) that were
previously regulated separately in our
nonroad diesel program. As with
locomotives, our ANPRM described a
one-step marine diesel program that
would bring about the introduction of
high-efficiency exhaust aftertreatment in
this sector. Just as for locomotives, our
subsequent extensive analyses
(documented in the draft RIA) and
numerous discussions with stakeholders
since then have resulted in this proposal
for standards in multiple steps, with the
longer-term implementation of
advanced technologies focused
especially on the engines with the
greatest potential for large PM and NOX
emission reductions.
The proposed marine diesel engine
standards include stringent enginebased Tier 3 standards for newly-built
marine diesel engines that phase in
beginning in 2009. These are followed
by aftertreatment-based Tier 4 standards
for engines above 600 kW (800 hp) that
phase in beginning in 2014. The specific
levels and implementation dates for the
proposed Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards
vary by engine sub-groupings. Although
this results in a somewhat complicated
array of emissions standards, it will
ensure the most stringent standards
feasible for each group of newly-built
marine engines, and will help engine
and vessel manufacturers to implement
the program in a cost effective manner
that also emphasizes early emission
reductions. The proposed standards and
implementation schedules, as well as
their technological feasibility, are
described in detail in section III of this
preamble.
We are also requesting comment on
an alternative we are considering to
address the considerable impact of
emissions from large marine diesel
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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?
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(1) Locomotives and Marine Diesels
Contribute to Serious Air Pollution
Problems
Locomotive and marine diesel engines
subject to today’s proposal generate
significant emissions of fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) that contribute to nonattainment
of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for PM2.5 and ozone. NOX is
a key precursor to ozone and secondary
PM formation. These engines also emit
hazardous air pollutants or air toxics,
which are associated with serious
adverse health effects. Emissions from
locomotive and marine diesel engines
also cause harm to public welfare,
including contributing to visibility
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
impairment and other harmful
environmental impacts across the US.
The health and environmental effects
associated with these emissions are a
classic example of a negative externality
(an activity that imposes
uncompensated costs on others). With a
negative externality, an activity’s social
cost (the cost borne to society imposed
as a result of the activity taking place)
exceeds its private cost (the cost to those
directly engaged in the activity). In this
case, as described below and in Section
II, emissions from locomotives and
marine diesel engines and vessels
impose public health and
environmental costs on society.
However, these added costs to society
are not reflected in the costs of those
using these engines and equipment. The
market system itself cannot correct this
externality because firms in the market
are rewarded for minimizing their
production costs, including the costs of
pollution control. In addition, firms that
may take steps to use equipment that
reduces air pollution may find
themselves at a competitive
disadvantage compared to firms that do
not. To correct this market failure and
reduce the negative externality from
these emissions, it is necessary to give
producers the signals for the social costs
generated from the emissions. The
standards EPA is proposing will
accomplish this by mandating that
locomotives and marine diesel engines
reduce their emissions to a
technologically feasible limit. In other
words, with this proposed rule the costs
of the transportation services produced
by these engines and equipment will
account for social costs more fully.
Emissions from locomotive and
marine diesel engines account for
substantial portions of the country’s
ambient PM2.5 and NOX levels. We
estimate that today hese engines
account for about 20 percent of mobile
source NOX emissions and about 25
percent of mobile source diesel PM 2.5
emissions. Under today’s proposed
standards, by 2030, annual NOX
emissions from these diesel engines
would be reduced by 765,000 tons and
PM2.5 emissions by 28,000 tons, and
those reductions would continue to
grow beyond 2030 as fleet turnover to
the clean engines is completed.
EPA has already taken steps to bring
emissions levels from light-duty and
heavy-duty highway, and nonroad
diesel vehicles and engines to very low
levels over the next decade, as well as
certain stationary diesel engines also
subject to these standards, while the
emission levels for locomotive and
marine diesel engines remain at much
higher levels—comparable to the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15943
emissions for highway trucks in the
early 1990s.
Both ozone and PM2.5 contribute to
serious public health problems,
including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by
increased hospital admissions and
emergency room visits, school absences,
lost work days, and restricted activity
days), changes in lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms, altered
respiratory defense mechanisms, and
chronic bronchitis. Diesel exhaust is of
special public health concern, and since
2002 EPA has classified it as likely to be
carcinogenic to humans by inhalation at
environmental exposures.7 Recent
studies are showing that populations
living near large diesel emission sources
such as major roadways,8 rail yards, and
marine ports 9 are likely to experience
greater diesel exhaust exposure levels
than the overall U.S. population, putting
them at greater health risks. We are
currently studying the size of the U.S.
population living near a sample of
approximately 60 marine ports and rail
yards, and will place the information in
the docket upon completion prior to the
final rule.
Today millions of Americans
continue to live in areas that do not
meet existing air quality standards.
Currently, ozone concentrations
exceeding the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
occur over wide geographic areas,
including most of the nation’s major
population centers. As of October 2006
there are approximately 157 million
people living in 116 areas (461 full or
partial counties) designated as not in
attainment with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. These numbers do not include
people living in areas where there is a
potential that the area may fail to
maintain or achieve the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. With regard to PM2.5
nonattainment, EPA has recently
finalized nonattainment designations
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
https://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: https://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: https://
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/
portstudy0406.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15944
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(70 FR 943, Jan 5, 2005), and as of
October 2006 there are 88 million
people living in 39 areas (which include
all or part of 208 counties) that either do
not meet the PM2.5 NAAQS or
contribute to violations in other
counties. These numbers do not include
individuals living in areas that may fail
to maintain or achieve the PM2.5
NAAQS in the future.
In addition to public health impacts,
there are public welfare and
environmental impacts associated with
ozone and PM2.5 emissions which are
also serious. Specifically, ozone causes
damage to vegetation which leads to
crop and forestry economic losses, as
well as harm to national parks,
wilderness areas, and other natural
systems. NOX and direct emissions of
PM2.5 can contribute to the substantial
impairment of visibility in many part of
the U.S., where people live, work, and
recreate, including national parks,
wilderness areas, and mandatory class I
federal areas. The deposition of airborne
particles can also reduce the aesthetic
appeal of buildings and culturally
important articles through soiling, and
can contribute directly (or in
conjunction with other pollutants) to
structural damage by means of corrosion
or erosion. Finally, NOX emissions from
diesel engines contribute to the
acidification, nitrification, and
eutrophication of water bodies.
While EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone and
PM2.5 levels, including the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162,
May 12, 2005) and the Clean Air
Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June
29, 2004), the Heavy Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66
FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001), and the Tier 2
Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program
(65 FR 6698, Feb. 10, 2000), the
additional PM2.5 and NOX emission
reductions resulting from the standards
proposed in this action would assist
states in attaining and maintaining the
Ozone and the PM2.5 NAAQS near term
and in the decades to come.
In September 2006, EPA finalized
revised PM2.5 NAAQS standards and
over the next few years the Agency will
undergo the process of designating areas
that are not able to meet this new
standard. EPA modeling, conducted as
part of finalizing the revised NAAQS,
projects that in 2015 up to 52 counties
with 53 million people may violate
either the daily, annual, or both
standards for PM2.5 while an additional
27 million people in 54 counties may
live in areas that have air quality
measurements within 10 percent of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
revised NAAQS. Even in 2020 up to 48
counties, with 54 million people, may
still not be able to meet the revised
PM2.5 NAAQS and an additional 25
million people, living in 50 counties,
are projected to have air quality
measurements within 10 percent of the
revised standards. The locomotive and
marine diesel PM2.5 reductions resulting
from this proposal will be needed by
states to both attain and maintain the
revised PM2.5 NAAQS.
State and local governments are
working to protect the health of their
citizens and comply with requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’).
As part of this effort they recognize the
need to secure additional major
reductions in both diesel PM2.5 and NOX
emissions by undertaking numerous
state level actions,10 while also seeking
Agency action, including the setting of
stringent new locomotive and marine
diesel engine standards being proposed
today.11 The emission reductions in this
proposal will play a critical part in state
efforts to attain and maintain the
NAAQS through the next two decades.
While the program we are proposing
today will help many states and
communities achieve cleaner air, for
some areas, the reductions will not be
large enough or early enough to assist
them in meeting near term ozone and
PM air quality goals. More can be done,
beyond what we are proposing today, to
address the emissions from locomotive
and marine diesel engines. For example,
as part of this proposal we are
requesting comment on a concept to set
emission standards for existing large
marine diesel engines when they are
remanufactured. Were we to finalize
such a concept, it could provide
substantial emission reductions,
beginning in the next few years, from
some of the large legacy fleets of dirtier
diesel engines.
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 https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
At the time of our previous
locomotive rulemaking, the State of
California worked with the railroads
operating in southern California to
develop and implement a corollary
program, ensuring that the cleanest
technologies are expeditiously
introduced in these areas with greatest
air quality improvement needs. Today’s
proposal includes provisions, such as
streamlined switcher locomotive
certification using clean nonroad
engines, that are well-suited to
encouraging early deployment of
cleaner technologies through the
development of similar programs.
In addition to regulatory programs,
the Agency has a number of voluntary
programs that partner government,
industry, and local communities
together to help address challenging air
quality problems. The EPA SmartWay
program has initiatives to reduce
unnecessary locomotive idling and to
encourage the use of idle reduction
technologies that can substantially
reduce locomotive emissions while
reducing fuel consumption. EPA’s
National Clean Diesel Campaign,
through its Clean Ports USA program, is
working with port authorities, terminal
operators, and trucking and rail
companies to promote cleaner diesel
technologies and strategies today
through education, incentives, and
financial assistance for diesel emissions
reductions at ports. Part of these efforts
involves voluntary retrofit programs that
can further reduce emissions from the
existing fleet of diesel engines. Finally,
many of the companies operating in
states and communities suffering from
poor air quality have voluntarily entered
into Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) designed to ensure that the
cleanest technologies are used first in
regions with the most challenging air
quality issues.
Together, these approaches can
augment the regulations being proposed
today helping states and communities
achieve larger reductions sooner in the
areas of our country that need them the
most. The Agency remains committed to
furthering these programs and others so
that all of our citizens can breathe clean
healthy air.
(2) Advanced Technology Solutions
Air pollution from locomotive and
marine diesel exhaust is a challenging
problem. However, we believe it can be
addressed effectively through the use of
existing technology to reduce engine-out
emissions combined with highefficiency catalytic aftertreatment
technologies. As discussed in greater
detail in section III.D, the development
of these aftertreatment technologies for
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
highway and nonroad diesel
applications has advanced rapidly in
recent years, so that very large emission
reductions in PM and NOX (in excess of
90 and 80 percent, respectively) can be
achieved.
High-efficiency PM control
technologies are being broadly used in
many parts of the world, and in
particular to comply with EPA’s heavyduty truck standards now taking effect
with the 2007 model year. These
technologies are highly durable and
robust in use, and have also proved
extremely effective in reducing exhaust
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. However,
as discussed in detail in section III.D,
these emission control technologies are
very sensitive to sulfur in the fuel. For
the technology to be viable and capable
of controlling an engine’s emissions
over the long term, we believe it will
require diesel fuel with sulfur content
capped at the 15 ppm level.
Control of NOX emissions from
locomotive and marine diesel engines
can also be achieved with highefficiency exhaust emission control
technologies. Such technologies are
expected to be used to meet the
stringent NOX standards included in
EPA’s heavy-duty highway diesel and
nonroad Tier 4 programs, and have been
in production for heavy duty trucks in
Europe since 2005, as well as in many
stationary source applications
throughout the world. These
technologies are also sensitive to sulfur.
Section III.D discusses additional
engineering challenges in applying
these technologies to newly-built
locomotive and marine engines, as well
as the development steps that we expect
to be taken to resolve the challenges.
With the lead time available and the
assurance of ULSD for the locomotive
and marine sectors in 2012, as provided
by our 2004 final rule for nonroad
engines and fuel, we are confident the
proposed application of advanced
technology to locomotives and marine
diesels will proceed at a reasonable rate
of progress and will result in systems
capable of achieving the proposed
standards on the proposed schedule.
(3) Basis for Action Under the Clean Air
Act
Authority for the actions promulgated
in this documents is granted to the
Environmental Protections Agency
(EPA) by sections 114, 203, 205, 206,
207, 208, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or ‘‘the Act’’) (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522,
7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7547, 7550 and
7601(a)).
EPA is promulgating emissions
standards for new marine diesel engines
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
pursuant to its authority under section
213(a)(3) and (4) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). EPA is promulgating emission
standards for new locomotives and new
engines used in locomotives pursuant to
its authority under section 213(a)(5) of
the CAA.
CAA section 213(a)(3) directs the
Administrator to set NOX, VOCs, or
carbon monoxide, standards for classes
or categories of engines that contribute
to ozone or carbon monoxide
concentrations in more than one
nonattainment area, like marine diesel
engines. These ‘‘standards shall achieve
the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be
available for the engines or vehicles,
giving appropriate consideration to cost,
lead time, noise, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application
of such technology.’’
CAA section 213(a)(4), authorizes the
Administrator to establish standards to
control emissions of pollutants which
‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health and welfare,’’
where the Administrator determines, as
it has done for emissions of PM, that
nonroad engines as a whole contribute
significantly to such air pollution. The
Administrator may promulgate
regulations that are deemed appropriate,
taking into account costs, noise, safety,
and energy factors, for classes or
categories of new nonroad vehicles and
engines which cause or contribute to
such air pollution, like diesel marine
engines.
Finally, section 213(a)(5) directs EPA
to adopt emission standards for new
locomotives and new engines used in
locomotives that achieve the ‘‘greatest
degree of emissions reductions
achievable through the use of
technology that the Administrator
determines will be available for such
vehicles and engines, taking into
account the cost of applying such
technology within the available time
period, the noise, energy, and safety
factors associated with the applications
of such technology.’’ Section 213(a)(5)
does not require any review of the
contribution of locomotive emissions to
pollution, though EPA does provide
such information in this proposal. As
described in section III of this Preamble
and in Chapter 4 of the draft RIA, EPA
has evaluated the available information
to determine the technology the will be
available for locomotives and engines
proposed to be subject to EPA
standards.
EPA is also acting under its authority
to implement and enforce both the
marine diesel emission standards and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15945
the locomotive emissions standards.
Section 213(d) provides that the
standards EPA adopts for both new
locomotive and marine diesel engines
‘‘shall be subject to sections 206, 207,
208, and 209’’ of the Clean Air Act, with
such modifications that the
Administrator deems appropriate to the
regulations implementing these
sections. In addition, the locomotive
and marine standards ‘‘shall be enforced
in the same manner as [motor vehicle]
standards prescribed under section 202’’
of the Act. Section 213(d) also grants
EPA authority to promulgate or revise
regulations as necessary to determine
compliance with, and enforce, standards
adopted under section 213.
As required under section 213(a)(3),
(4), and (5) we believe the evidence
provided in section III.D of this
Preamble and in Chapter 4 of draft RIA
indicates that the stringent emission
standards proposed today for newlybuilt and remanufactured locomotive
engines and newly-built marine diesel
engines are feasible and reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the use of
technology that will be available in the
model years to which they apply. We
also believe this may be the case for the
alternative identified for existing marine
engines in section VII.A(2) of this
preamble. We have given appropriate
consideration to costs in proposing
these standards. Our review of the costs
and cost-effectiveness of these standards
indicate that they will be reasonable and
comparable to the cost-effectiveness of
other emission reduction strategies that
have been required. We have also
reviewed and given appropriate
consideration to the energy factors of
this rule in terms of fuel efficiency as
well as any safety and noise factors
associated with these proposed
standards.
The information in section II of this
Preamble and Chapter 2 of the draft RIA
regarding air quality and public health
impacts provides strong evidence that
emissions from marine diesel engines
and locomotives significantly and
adversely impact public health or
welfare. EPA has already found in
previous rules that emissions from new
marine diesel engines contribute to
ozone and carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations in more than one area
which has failed to attain the ozone and
carbon monoxide NAAQS (64 FR 73300,
December 29, 1999). EPA has also
previously determined that it is
appropriate to establish standards for
PM from marine diesel engines under
section 213(a)(4), and the additional
information on diesel exhaust
carcinogenicity noted above reinforces
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15946
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
this finding. In addition, we have
already found that emissions from
nonroad engines as a whole
significantly contribute to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public welfare due to regional
haze and visibility impairment (67 FR
68241, Nov. 8, 2002). We propose to
find here, based on the information in
section II of this preamble and Chapters
2 and 3 of the draft RIA that emissions
from the new marine diesel engines
likewise contribute to regional haze and
to visibility impairment.
The PM and NOX emission reductions
resulting from the standards proposed
in this action would be important to
states’ efforts in attaining and
maintaining the Ozone and the PM2.5
NAAQS in the near term and in the
decades to come. As noted above, the
risk to human health and welfare would
be significantly reduced by the
standards proposed today.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
II. Air Quality and Health Impacts
The locomotive and marine diesel
engines subject to today’s proposal
generate significant emissions of
particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) that contribute to
nonattainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
PM2.5 and ozone. These engines also
emit hazardous air pollutants or air
toxics which are associated with serious
adverse health effects. Finally,
emissions from locomotive and marine
diesel engines cause harm to the public
welfare, contribute to visibility
impairment, and contribute to other
harmful environmental impacts across
the U.S.
By 2030, the proposed standards are
expected to reduce annual locomotive
and marine diesel engine PM2.5
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
emissions by 28,000 tons; NOX
emissions by 765,000 tons; and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions by
42,000 tons as well as reductions in
carbon monoxide (CO) and toxic
compounds known as air toxics.12
We estimate that reductions of PM2.5,
NOX, and VOC emissions from
locomotive and marine diesel engines
would produce nationwide air quality
improvements. According to air quality
modeling performed in conjunction
with this proposed rule, if finalized, all
39 current PM2.5 nonattainment areas
would experience a decrease in their
2020 and 2030 design values. Likewise
all 116 mandatory class I federal areas
would see improvements in their
visibility. This rule would also result in
substantial nationwide ozone benefits.
The air quality modeling conducted for
ozone estimates that in 2020 and 2030,
114 of the current 116 ozone
nonattainment areas would see
improvements in ozone air quality as a
result of this proposed rule.
A. Overview
From a public health perspective, we
are concerned with locomotive and
marine diesel engines’ contributions to
atmospheric levels of particulate matter
in general, diesel PM2.5 in particular,
and various gaseous air toxics, and
ozone. Today, locomotive and marine
diesel engine emissions represent a
substantial portion of the U.S. mobile
source diesel PM2.5 and NOX emissions
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:https://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/
aqtrnd99/.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accounting for approximately 20 percent
of mobile source NOX and 25 percent of
mobile source diesel PM2.5. These
proportions are even higher in some
urban areas. Over time, the relative
contribution of these diesel engines to
air quality problems is expected to
increase as the emission contribution
from other mobile sources decreases and
the usage of locomotives and marine
vessels increases. By 2030, without
further emissions controls beyond those
already adopted for these engines,
locomotive and marine diesel engines
nationally will emit more than 65
percent of the total mobile source diesel
PM2.5 emissions and 35 percent of the
total mobile source NOX emissions.
Based on the most recent data
available for this rule, air quality
problems continue to persist over a
wide geographic area of the United
States. As of October 2006 there are
approximately 88 million people living
in 39 designated areas (which include
all or part of 208 counties) that either do
not meet the current PM2.5 NAAQS or
contribute to violations in other
counties, and 157 million people living
in 116 areas (which include all or part
of 461 counties) designated as not in
attainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. These numbers do not include
the people living in areas where there is
a significant future risk of failing to
maintain or achieve either the PM2.5 or
ozone NAAQS. Figure II–1 illustrates
the widespread nature of these
problems. This figure depicts counties
which are currently designated
nonattainment for either or both the 8hour ozone NAAQS and PM2.5 NAAQS.
It also shows the location of mandatory
class I federal areas for visibility.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
The engine standards proposed in this
rule would help reduce emissions of
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15947
PM, NOX, VOCs, CO, and air toxics and
their associated health and
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.000
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
15948
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
environmental effects. Emissions from
locomotives and diesel marine engines
contribute to PM and ozone
concentrations in many, if not all, of
these nonattainment areas.13 The engine
standards being proposed today would
become effective as early as 2008
making the expected PM2.5, NOX, and
VOC inventory reductions from this
rulemaking critical to states as they seek
to either attain or maintain the current
PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS.
Beyond the impact locomotive and
marine diesel engines have on our
nation’s ambient air quality the diesel
exhaust emissions emanating from these
engines are also of particular concern
since diesel exhaust is classified as a
likely human carcinogen.14 Many
people spend a large portion of time in
or near areas of concentrated locomotive
or marine diesel emissions, near rail
yards, marine ports, railways, and
waterways. Recent studies show that
populations living near large diesel
emission sources such as major
roadways,15 rail yards 16 and marine
ports 17 are likely to experience greater
diesel exhaust exposure levels than the
overall U.S. population, putting them at
a greater health risk. We are currently
studying the size of the U.S. population
living near a sample of approximately
60 marine ports and rail yards, and will
place that information in the docket
upon completion prior to the final rule.
The diesel PM2.5 reductions which
occur as a result of this proposed rule
would benefit the population near these
sources and also assist state and local
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 PM2.5 and ozone
nonattainment areas.
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
https://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 https://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:https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/
marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
governments as they work to meet the
NAAQS.
In the following three sections we
review important public health effects
linked to pollutants emitted from
locomotive and marine diesel engines
first describing the human health effects
and the current and expected future
ambient levels of direct or indirectly
caused pollution. Following the
discussion of health effects, we will
discuss the modeled air quality benefits
which are estimated to result from
regulating these engines. We also
discuss a number of other welfare
effects associated with emissions from
diesel engines. These effects include
visibility impairment, ecological and
property damage caused by acid
deposition, eutrophication and
nitrification of surface waters,
environmental threats posed by
polycyclic organic matter (POM)
deposition, and plant and crop damage
from ozone.
Finally, in section E we describe the
locomotive and marine engine emission
inventories for the primary pollutants
affected by the proposal. We present
current and projected future levels of
emissions for the base case, including
anticipated reductions from control
programs already adopted by EPA and
the States, but without the controls
proposed today. Then we identify
expected emission reductions from
nonroad locomotive and marine diesel
engines. These reductions would make
important contributions to controlling
the health and welfare problems
associated with ambient PM and ozone
levels and with diesel-related air toxics.
Taken together, the materials in this
section describe the need for tightening
emission standards from both
locomotive and marine diesel engines
and the air quality and public health
benefits we expect as a result of this
proposed rule. This section is not an
exhaustive treatment of these issues. For
a fuller understanding of the topics
treated here, you should refer to the
extended presentations in Chapter 2 of
the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) accompanying this proposal.
B. Public Health Impacts
(1) Particulate Matter
The proposed locomotive and marine
engine standards would result in
significant reductions of primary PM2.5
emissions from these sources. In
addition, locomotive and marine diesel
engines emit high levels of NOX which
react in the atmosphere to form
secondary PM2.5, ammonium nitrate.
Locomotive and marine diesel engines
also emit SO2 and HC which react in the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
atmosphere to form secondary PM2.5
composed of sulfates and organic
carbonaceous PM2.5. This proposed rule
would reduce both the directly emitted
diesel PM and secondary PM emissions.
(a) Background
Particulate matter (PM) represents a
broad class of chemically and physically
diverse substances. It can be principally
characterized as discrete particles that
exist in the condensed (liquid or solid)
phase spanning several orders of
magnitude in size. PM is further
described by breaking it down into size
fractions. PM10 refers to particles
generally less than or equal to 10
micrometers (µm). PM2.5 refers to fine
particles, those particles generally less
than or equal to 2.5 µm in diameter.
Inhalable (or ‘‘thoracic’’) coarse particles
refer to those particles generally greater
than 2.5 µm but less than or equal to 10
µm in diameter. Ultrafine PM refers to
particles less than 100 nanometers (0.1
µm). Larger particles tend to be removed
by the respiratory clearance
mechanisms (e.g. coughing), whereas
smaller particles are deposited deeper in
the lungs.
Fine particles are produced primarily
by combustion processes and by
transformations of gaseous emissions
(e.g., SOX, NOX and VOCs) in the
atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly
with time, region, meteorology, and
source category. Thus, PM2.5, may
include a complex mixture of different
pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon
and metal compounds. These particles
can remain in the atmosphere for days
to weeks and travel through the
atmosphere hundreds to thousands of
kilometers.
The primary PM2.5 NAAQS includes a
short-term (24-hour) and a long-term
(annual) standard. The 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS established by EPA set the 24hour standard at a level of 65 µg/m3
based on the 98th percentile
concentration averaged over three years.
(This air quality statistic compared to
the standard is referred to as the ‘‘design
value.’’) The annual standard specifies
an expected annual arithmetic mean not
to exceed 15 µg/m3 averaged over three
years. EPA has recently finalized PM2.5
nonattainment designations for the 1997
standard (70 FR 943, Jan 5, 2005).18 All
areas currently in nonattainment for
18 US EPA, Air Quality Designations and
Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December
17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document
is also available on the web at: https://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15949
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
PM2.5 will be required to meet these
1997 standards between 2009 and 2014.
As can be seen in Figure II–1 ambient
PM2.5 levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS are widespread throughout the
country. As of October 2006 there were
approximately 88 million people living
in 39 areas (which include all or part of
208 counties) that either do not meet the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or contribute to
violations in other counties. These
numbers do not include the people
living in areas where there is a
significant future risk of failing to
maintain or achieve the PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has recently amended the
NAAQS for PM2.5 (71 FR 61144, October
17, 2006). The final rule, signed on
September 21, 2006 and published in
the Federal Register on October 17,
2006, addressed revisions to the primary
and secondary NAAQS for PM to
provide increased protection of public
health and welfare, respectively. The
level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was
revised from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 to
provide increased protection against
health effects associated with short-term
exposures to fine particles. The current
form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was
retained (e.g., based on the 98th
percentile concentration averaged over
three years). The level of the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS was retained at 15 µg/m3,
continuing protection against health
effects associated with long-term
exposures. The current form of the
annual PM2.5 standard was retained as
an annual arithmetic mean averaged
over three years, however, the following
two aspects of the spatial averaging
criteria were narrowed: (1) The annual
mean concentration at each site shall be
within 10 percent of the spatially
averaged annual mean, and (2) the daily
values for each monitoring site pair
shall yield a correlation coefficient of at
least 0.9 for each calendar quarter.
With regard to the secondary PM2.5
standards, EPA has revised these
standards to be identical in all respects
to the revised primary standards.
Specifically, EPA has revised the
current 24-hour PM2.5 secondary
standard by making it identical to the
revised 24-hour PM2.5 primary standard
and retained the annual PM2.5 secondary
standard. This suite of secondary PM2.5
standards is intended to provide
protection against PM-related public
welfare effects, including visibility
impairment, effects on vegetation and
ecosystems, and material damage and
soiling.
The 2006 standards became effective
on December 18, 2006. As a result of the
2006 PM2.5 standard, EPA will designate
new nonattainment areas in early 2010.
The timeframe for areas attaining the
2006 PM NAAQS will likely extend
from 2015 to 2020.
Table II–1 presents the number of
counties in areas currently designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS as well as the number of
additional counties which have
monitored data that is violating the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In total more than 106
million U.S. residents, in 257 counties
are living in areas which either violate
either the 1997 PM2.5 standard or the
2006 PM2.5 standard.
TABLE II–1.—FINE PARTICLE STANDARDS: CURRENT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AND OTHER VIOLATING COUNTIES
Number of
counties
Population a
1997 PM2.5 Standards: 39 areas currently designated ...........................................................................................
2006 PM2.5 Standards: Counties with violating monitors b ......................................................................................
208
49
88,394,000
18,198,676
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
257
106,595,676
a Population
numbers are from 2000 census data.
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
b This
EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient PM2.5 levels
and as a result of these programs, the
number of areas that fail to achieve the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is expected to
decrease. Even so, EPA modeling
projects that in 2015, with all current
controls, up to 52 counties with 53
million population may not attain some
combination of the current annual
standard of 15 µg/m3 and the revised
daily standard of 35 µg/m3, and that
even in 2020 up to 48 counties with 54
million population will still not be able
to attain either the annual, daily, or both
the annual and daily PM2.5 standards.19
This does not account for additional
areas that have air quality
measurements within 10 percent of the
2006 PM2.5 standard. These areas,
although not violating the standards,
19 Final RIA PM NAAQS, Chapter 2: Defining the
PM2.5 Air Quality Problem. October 17, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
would also benefit from the additional
reductions from this rule ensuring long
term maintenance of the PM NAAQS.
States have told EPA that they need
the reductions this proposed rule would
provide in order to meet and maintain
both the current 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on the
final rule designating and classifying
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, most PM2.5
nonattainment areas will be required to
attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the
2009 to 2015 time frame, and then be
required to maintain the NAAQS
thereafter. The emissions standards for
engine remanufacturing being proposed
in this action would become effective as
early as 2008, but no later than 2010,
and states would rely on these expected
PM2.5 reductions to help them to either
attain or maintain the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. In the long term, the emission
reductions resulting from the proposed
locomotive and marine diesel engine
standards would be important to states
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
efforts to attain and maintain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
(b) Health Effects of PM2.5
Scientific studies show ambient PM is
associated with a series of adverse
health effects. These health effects are
discussed in detail in the 2004 EPA
Particulate Matter Air Quality Criteria
Document (PM AQCD) for PM, and the
2005 PM Staff Paper.20 21 22 Further
discussion of health effects associated
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15950
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
with PM can also be found in the draft
RIA for this proposal.
Health effects associated with shortterm exposures (hours to days) to
ambient PM include premature
mortality, increased hospital
admissions, heart and lung diseases,
increased cough, adverse lowerrespiratory symptoms, decrements in
lung function and changes in heart rate
rhythm and other cardiac effects.
Studies examining populations exposed
to different levels of air pollution over
a number of years, including the
Harvard Six Cities Study and the
American Cancer Society Study, show
associations between long-term
exposure to ambient PM2.5 and both
total and cardio respiratory mortality.23
In addition, a reanalysis of the
American Cancer Society Study shows
an association between fine particle and
sulfate concentrations and lung cancer
mortality.24 The locomotive and marine
diesel engines, covered in this proposal
contribute to both acute and chronic
PM2.5 exposures. Additional
information on acute exposures is
available in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA
for this proposal.
These health effects of PM2.5 have
been further documented in local
impact studies which have focused on
health effects due to PM2.5 exposures
measured on or near roadways.25 Taking
account of all air pollution sources,
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
including both spark-ignition (gasoline)
and diesel powered vehicles, these latter
studies indicate that exposure to PM2.5
emissions near roadways, dominated by
mobile sources, are associated with
potentially serious health effects. For
instance, a recent study found
associations between concentrations of
cardiac risk factors in the blood of
healthy young police officers and PM2.5
concentrations measured in vehicles.26
Also, a number of studies have shown
associations between residential or
school outdoor concentrations of some
constituents of fine particles found in
motor vehicle exhaust and adverse
respiratory outcomes, including asthma
prevalence in children who live near
major roadways.27 28 29 Although the
engines considered in this proposal
differ with those in these studies with
respect to their applications and fuel
qualities, these studies provide an
indication of the types of health effects
that might be expected to be associated
with personal exposure to PM2.5
emissions from large marine diesel and
locomotive engines. The proposed
controls would help to reduce exposure,
and specifically exposure near marine
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ports and rail yard related PM2.5
sources.
Recently, new studies 30 from the
State of California provide evidence that
PM2.5 emissions within marine ports
and rail yards contribute significantly to
elevated ambient concentrations near
these sources. A substantial number of
people experience exposure to
locomotive and marine diesel engine
emissions, raising potential health
concerns. Additional information on
marine port and rail yard emissions and
ambient exposures can be found in
section.B.3 of this preamble.
(c) PM2.5 Air Quality Modeling Results
Air quality modeling performed for
this proposal shows that in 2020 and
2030 all 39 current PM2.5 nonattainment
areas would experience decreases in
their PM2.5 design values. For areas with
PM2.5 design values greater than 15 µg/
m3 the modeled future-year PM2.5 design
values are expected to decrease on
average by 0.06 µg/m3 in 2020 and 0.14
µg/m3 in 2030. The maximum decrease
for future-year PM2.5 design values in
2020 would be 0.35 µg/m3 and 0.90 µg/
m3 in 2030. The reductions are
discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of
the draft RIA.
The geographic impact of the
proposed locomotive and marine diesel
engine controls in 2030 on PM2.5 design
values (DV) in counties across the US,
can be seen in Figure II–2.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
30 State of California Air Resources Board.
Roseville Rail Yard Study. Stationary Source
Division, October 14, 2004. This document is
available electronically at: https://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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15951
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.001
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
15952
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Figure II–2 illustrates that the greatest
emission reductions in 2030 are
projected to occur in Southern
California where 3 counties would
experience reductions in their PM2.5
design values of ¥0.50 to ¥0.90 µg/m3.
The next level of emission reductions
would occur among 13 counties
geographically dispersed in the
southeastern U.S., southern Illinois, and
southern California. An additional 325
counties spread across the U.S. would
see a decrease in their PM2.5 DV ranging
from ¥0.05 to ¥0.24 µg/m3.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(d) PM Air Quality Modeling
Methodology
A national scale air quality modeling
analysis was performed to estimate
future year annual and daily PM2.5
concentrations and visibility for this
proposed rule. To model the air quality
benefits of this rule we used the
Community-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ)
model. CMAQ simulates the numerous
physical and chemical processes
involved in the formation, transport,
and destruction of ozone and particulate
matter. In addition to the CMAQ model,
the modeling platform includes the
emissions, meteorology, and initial and
boundary condition data which are
inputs to this model. Consideration of
the different processes that affect
primary directly emitted and secondary
PM at the regional scale in different
locations is fundamental to
understanding and assessing the effects
of pollution control measures that affect
PM, ozone and deposition of pollutants
to the surface. A complete description of
the CAMQ model and methodology
employed to develop the future year
impacts of this proposed rule are found
in Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA.
It should be noted that the emission
control scenarios used in the air quality
and benefits modeling are slightly
different than the emission control
program being proposed. The
differences reflect further refinements of
the regulatory program since we
performed the air quality modeling for
this rule. Emissions and air quality
modeling decisions are made early in
the analytical process. Chapter 3 of the
draft RIA describes the changes in the
inputs and resulting emission
inventories between the preliminary
assumptions used for the air quality
modeling and the final proposed
regulatory scenario. These refinements
to the proposed program would not
significantly change the results
summarized here or our conclusions
drawn from this analysis.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(2) Ozone
The proposed locomotive and marine
engine standards are expected to result
in significant reductions of NOX and
VOC emissions. NOX and VOC
contribute to the formation of groundlevel ozone pollution or smog. People in
many areas across the U.S. continue to
be exposed to unhealthy levels of
ambient ozone.
(a) Background
Ground-level ozone pollution is
formed by the reaction of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the
atmosphere in the presence of heat and
sunlight. These two pollutants, often
referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution
sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines, power
plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial
products, industrial facilities, and
smaller ‘‘area’’ sources.
The science of ozone formation,
transport, and accumulation is
complex.31 Ground-level ozone is
produced and destroyed in a cyclical set
of chemical reactions, many of which
are sensitive to temperature and
sunlight. When ambient temperatures
and sunlight levels remain high for
several days and the air is relatively
stagnant, ozone and its precursors can
build up and result in more ozone than
typically would occur on a single hightemperature day. Ozone also can be
transported from pollution sources into
areas hundreds of miles upwind,
resulting in elevated ozone levels even
in areas with low local VOC or NOX
emissions.
The highest levels of ozone are
produced when both VOC and NOX
emissions are present in significant
quantities on clear summer days.
Relatively small amounts of NOX enable
ozone to form rapidly when VOC levels
are relatively high, but ozone
production is quickly limited by
removal of the NOX. Under these
conditions NOX reductions are highly
effective in reducing ozone while VOC
reductions have little effect. Such
conditions are called ‘‘NOX-limited.’’
Because the contribution of VOC
emissions from biogenic (natural)
sources to local ambient ozone
concentrations can be significant, even
some areas where man-made VOC
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: https://
www.epa.gov/ ttn/naaqs/standards/ ozone/s_o3_
cr_cd.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions are relatively low can be
NOX-limited.
When NOX levels are relatively high
and VOC levels relatively low, NOX
forms inorganic nitrates (i.e., particles)
but relatively little ozone. Such
conditions are called ‘‘VOC-limited.’’
Under these conditions, VOC reductions
are effective in reducing ozone, but NOX
reductions can actually increase local
ozone under certain circumstances.
Even in VOC-limited urban areas, NOX
reductions are not expected to increase
ozone levels if the NOX reductions are
sufficiently large.
Rural areas are usually NOX-limited,
due to the relatively large amounts of
biogenic VOC emissions in many rural
areas. Urban areas can be either VOC- or
NOX-limited, or a mixture of both, in
which ozone levels exhibit moderate
sensitivity to changes in either
pollutant.
Ozone concentrations in an area also
can be lowered by the reaction of nitric
oxide with ozone, forming nitrogen
dioxide (NO2); as the air moves
downwind and the cycle continues, the
NO2 forms additional ozone. The
importance of this reaction depends, in
part, on the relative concentrations of
NOX, VOC, and ozone, all of which
change with time and location.
The current ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) has an
8-hour averaging time.32 The 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, established by EPA in
1997, is based on well-documented
science demonstrating that more people
were experiencing adverse health effects
at lower levels of exertion, over longer
periods, and at lower ozone
concentrations than addressed by the
previous one-hour ozone NAAQS. The
current ozone NAAQS addresses ozone
exposures of concern for the general
population and populations most at
risk, including children active outdoors,
outdoor workers, and individuals with
pre-existing respiratory disease, such as
asthma. The 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring
site when the average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration over three
years is less than or equal to 0.084 ppm.
Ozone concentrations exceeding the
level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS occur
over wide geographic areas, including
most of the nation’s major population
centers.33 As of October 2006 there are
approximately 157 million people living
in 116 areas (which include all or part
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.
33 A listing of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas is included in the draft RIA for this proposed
rule.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
of 461 counties) designated as not in
attainment with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. These numbers do not include
the people living in areas where there is
a future risk of failing to maintain or
achieve the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone
levels. These control programs are
described in section I.B.(1) of this
preamble. As a result of these programs,
the number of areas that fail to meet the
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future is
expected to decrease.
Based on recent ozone modeling
performed for the CAIR analysis,34
which does not include any additional
local ozone precursor controls, we
estimate that in 2010, 24 million people
are projected to live in 37 Eastern
counties exceeding the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. An additional 61 million
people are projected to live in 148
Eastern counties expected to be within
10 percent of violating the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in 2010.
States with 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas will be required to
take action to bring those areas into
compliance in the future. Based on the
final rule designating and classifying 8hour 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 8hour ozone NAAQS thereafter.35 We
expect many of the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas will need to adopt
additional emission reduction programs.
The expected NOX and VOC reductions
from the standards proposed in this
action would be important to states as
they seek to either attain or maintain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(b) Health Effects of Ozone
The health and welfare effects of
ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA’s 2006 ozone Air
Quality Criteria Document (ozone
AQCD) and EPA staff papers. 36 37 38
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.
35 The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area will have to attain before
June 15, 2021.
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:https://
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Ozone can irritate the respiratory
system, causing coughing, throat
irritation, and/or uncomfortable
sensation in the chest. Ozone can
reduce lung function and make it more
difficult to breathe deeply, and
breathing may become more rapid and
shallow than normal, thereby limiting a
person’s activity. Ozone can also
aggravate asthma, leading to more
asthma attacks that require a doctor’s
attention and/or the use of additional
medication. Animal toxicological
evidence indicates that with repeated
exposure, ozone can inflame and
damage the lining of the lungs, which
may lead to permanent changes in lung
tissue and irreversible reductions in
lung function. People who are more
susceptible to effects associated with
exposure to ozone include children, the
elderly, and individuals with
respiratory disease such as asthma.
There is also suggestive evidence that
certain people may have greater genetic
susceptibility. People can also have
heightened vulnerability to ozone due to
greater exposures (e.g., children and
outdoor workers).
The recent ozone AQCD also
examined relevant new scientific
information which has emerged in the
past decade, including the impact of
ozone exposure on such health effect
indicators as changes in lung structure
and biochemistry, inflammation of the
lungs, exacerbation and causation of
asthma, respiratory illness-related
school absence, hospital admissions and
premature mortality. In addition to
supporting and building further on
conclusions from the 1996 AQCD, the
2006 AQCD included new information
on the health effects of ozone. Animal
toxicological studies have suggested
potential interactions between ozone
and PM with increased responses
observed to mixtures of the two
pollutants compared to either ozone or
PM alone. The respiratory morbidity
observed in animal studies along with
the evidence from epidemiologic studies
supports a causal relationship between
acute ambient ozone exposures and
increased respiratory-related emergency
room visits and hospitalizations in the
warm season. In addition, there is
suggestive evidence of a contribution of
ozone to cardiovascular-related
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15953
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15954
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(c) Air Quality Modeling Results for
Ozone
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
This proposed rule would result in
substantial nationwide ozone benefits.
The air quality modeling conducted for
ozone as part of this proposed
rulemaking projects that in 2020 and
2030, 114 of the current 116 ozone
nonattainment areas would see
improvements in ozone air quality as a
result of this proposed rule.
Results from the air quality modeling
conducted for this rulemaking indicates
that the average and populationweighted average concentrations over
all U.S. counties would experience
broad improvement in ozone air quality.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Figure II–3 shows those U.S. counties
in 2030 which are projected to
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15955
experience a change in their ozone
design values as a result of this
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.002
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
15956
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule. The most significant
decreases, equal or greater than ¥2.0
ppb, would occur in 7 counties across
the U.S. including: Grant (¥2.1 ppb)
and Lafayette (¥2.0 ppb) Counties in
Louisiana; Montgomery (¥2.0 ppb),
Galveston (¥2.0 ppb), and Jefferson
(¥2.0 ppb) Counties in Texas; Warren
County (¥2.9 ppb) in Mississippi; and
Santa Barbara County (¥2.7 ppb) in
California. One hundred eighty-seven
(187) counties would see annual ozone
design value reductions from ¥1.0 to
¥1.9 ppb while an estimated 217
additional counties would see annual
design value reductions from ¥0.5 to
¥0.9 ppb. Note that 5 counties
including: Suffolk (+1.5 ppb) and
Hampton (+0.8 ppb) Counties in
Virginia; Cook County (+0.7 ppb) in
Illinois; Lake County (+0.2 ppb) in
Indiana; and San Bernardino County
(+0.1 ppb) in California are projected to
experience an increase in ozone design
values because of the NOX disbenefit
that occurs under certain conditions.39
It is expected that future local and
national controls that decrease VOC,
CO, and regional ozone will mitigate
any localized disbenefits.
EPA’s review of the ozone NAAQS is
currently underway and a proposed
decision in this review is scheduled for
May 2007 with a final rule scheduled
for February 2008. If the ozone NAAQS
is revised then new nonattainment areas
could be designated. While EPA is not
relying on it for purposes of justifying
this proposal, the emission reductions
from this rulemaking would also be
helpful to states if there is an ozone
NAAQS revision.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(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
39 NO reductions can at certain times and in
X
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimates of noncancer risk, PM from
gasoline and diesel mobile sources
contribute significantly to the health
effects associated with ambient PM.
It should be noted that the NATA
modeling framework has a number of
limitations which prevent its use as the
sole basis for setting regulatory
standards. These limitations and
uncertainties are discussed on the 1999
NATA Web site.40 Even so, this
modeling framework is very useful in
identifying air toxic pollutants and
sources of greatest concern, setting
regulatory priorities, and informing the
decision making process.
The following section provides a brief
overview of air toxics which are
associated with nonroad engines,
including locomotive and marine diesel
engines, and provides a discussion of
the health risks associated with each air
toxic.
(a) Diesel Exhaust (DE)
Locomotive and marine diesel engine
emissions include diesel exhaust (DE), a
complex mixture comprised of carbon
dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen compounds,
sulfur compounds and numerous lowmolecular-weight hydrocarbons. A
number of these gaseous hydrocarbon
components are individually known to
be toxic including aldehydes, benzene
and 1,3-butadiene. The diesel
particulate matter (DPM) present in
diesel exhaust consists of fine particles
(<2.5 µm), including a subgroup with a
large number of ultrafine particles (<0.1
µm). These particles have large surface
area which makes them an excellent
medium for adsorbing organics and
their small size makes them highly
respirable and able to reach the deep
lung. Many of the organic compounds
present on the particles and in the gases
are individually known to have
mutagenic and carcinogenic properties.
Diesel exhaust varies significantly in
chemical composition and particle sizes
between different engine types (heavyduty, light-duty), engine operating
conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate),
and fuel formulations (high/low sulfur
fuel). Also, there are emissions
differences between on-road and
nonroad engines because the nonroad
engines are generally of older
technology. This is especially true for
locomotive and marine diesel engines.41
40 U.S. EPA (2006) National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment for 1999. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata1999.
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
In EPA’s 2002 Diesel Health
Assessment Document (Diesel HAD),42
diesel exhaust was classified as likely to
be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation
at environmental exposures, in
accordance with the revised draft 1996/
1999 EPA cancer guidelines. A number
of other agencies (National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer, the World Health Organization,
California EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services) have made similar
classifications. However, EPA also
concluded in the Diesel HAD that it is
not possible currently to calculate a
cancer unit risk for diesel exhaust due
to a variety of factors that limit the
current studies, such as limited
quantitative exposure histories in
occupational groups investigated for
lung cancer.
For the Diesel HAD, EPA reviewed 22
epidemiologic studies on the subject of
the carcinogenicity of workers exposed
to diesel exhaust in various
occupations, finding increased lung
cancer risk, although not always
statistically significant, in 8 out of 10
cohort studies and 10 out of 12 casecontrol studies within several
industries, including railroad workers.
Relative risk for lung cancer associated
with exposure ranged from 1.2 to 1.5,
although a few studies show relative
risks as high as 2.6. Additionally, the
Diesel HAD also relied on two
independent meta-analyses, which
examined 23 and 30 occupational
studies respectively, which found
statistically significant increases in
smoking-adjusted relative lung cancer
risk associated with diesel exhaust, of
1.33 to 1.47. These meta-analyses
demonstrate the effect of pooling many
studies and in this case show the
positive relationship between diesel
exhaust exposure and lung cancer
electronically at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
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
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
15957
Noncancer health effects of acute and
chronic exposure to diesel exhaust
emissions are also of concern to the
Agency. EPA derived an RfC from
consideration of four well-conducted
chronic rat inhalation studies showing
adverse pulmonary effects. 46 47 48 49 The
RfC is 5 µg/m 3 for diesel exhaust as
measured by diesel PM. This RfC does
not consider allergenic effects such as
those associated with asthma or
immunologic effects. There is growing
evidence, discussed in the Diesel HAD,
that diesel exhaust can exacerbate these
effects, but the exposure-response data
are presently lacking to derive an RfC.
The EPA Diesel HAD states, ‘‘With DPM
[diesel particulate matter] being a
ubiquitous component of ambient PM,
there is an uncertainty about the
adequacy of the existing DE [diesel
exhaust] noncancer database to identify
all of the pertinent DE-caused
noncancer health hazards. (p. 9–19).
Diesel exhaust has been shown to
cause serious noncancer effects in
occupational exposure studies. One
study of railroad workers and
electricians, cited in the Diesel HAD,50
found that exposure to diesel exhaust
resulted in neurobehavioral
impairments in one or more areas
including reaction time, balance, blink
reflex latency, verbal recall, and color
vision confusion indices. Pulmonary
function tests also showed that 10 of the
16 workers had airway obstruction and
another group of 10 of 16 workers had
chronic bronchitis, chest pain, tightness,
and hyperactive airways. Finally, a
variety of studies have been published
subsequent to the completion of the
Diesel HAD. One such study, published
in 2006 51 found that railroad engineers
and conductors with diesel exhaust
exposure from operating trains had an
increased incidence of chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
mortality. The odds of COPD mortality
increased with years on the job so that
those who had worked more than 16
years as an engineer or conductor after
1959 had an increased risk of 1.61 (95%
confidence interval, 1.12—2.30). EPA is
assessing the significance of this study
within the context of the broader
literature.
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 metaanalysis. Am J Public Health 80(7): 1009–1017.
46 Ishinishi, N; Kuwabara, N; Takaki, Y; et al.
(1988) Long-term inhalation experiments on diesel
exhaust. In: Diesel exhaust and health risks. Results
of the HERP studies. Ibaraki, Japan: Research
Committee for HERP Studies; pp. 11–84.
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.
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.
across a variety of diesel exhaustexposed occupations.43 44 45
In the absence of a cancer unit risk,
the Diesel HAD sought to provide
additional insight into the significance
of the diesel exhaust-cancer hazard by
estimating possible ranges of risk that
might be present in the population. An
exploratory analysis was used to
characterize a possible risk range by
comparing a typical environmental
exposure level for highway diesel
sources to a selected range of
occupational exposure levels. The
occupationally observed risks were then
proportionally scaled according to the
exposure ratios to obtain an estimate of
the possible environmental risk. A
number of calculations are needed to
accomplish this, and these can be seen
in the EPA Diesel HAD. The outcome
was that environmental risks from
diesel exhaust exposure could range
from a low of 10¥4 to 10¥5 to as high
as 10¥3, reflecting the range of
occupational exposures that could be
associated with the relative and absolute
risk levels observed in the occupational
studies. Because of uncertainties, the
analysis acknowledged that the risks
could be lower than 10¥4 or 10¥5, and
a zero risk from diesel exhaust exposure
was not ruled out.
Retrospective health studies of
railroad workers have played an
important part in determining that
diesel exhaust is a likely human
carcinogen. Key evidence of the diesel
exhaust exposure linkage to lung cancer
comes from two retrospective casecontrol studies of railroad workers
which are discussed at length in the
Diesel HAD.
(ii) Diesel Exhaust: Other Health Effects
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15958
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(iii) Ambient PM2.5 Levels and Exposure
to Diesel Exhaust PM
The Diesel HAD also briefly
summarizes health effects associated
with ambient PM and discusses the
EPA’s annual National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) of 15 µg/m 3.
There is a much more extensive body of
human data showing a wide spectrum of
adverse health effects associated with
exposure to ambient PM, of which
diesel exhaust is an important
component. The PM2.5 NAAQS is
designed to provide protection from the
noncancer and premature mortality
effects of PM2.5 as a whole, of which
diesel PM is a constituent.
(iv) Diesel Exhaust PM Exposures
Exposure of people to diesel exhaust
depends on their various activities, the
time spent in those activities, the
locations where these activities occur,
and the levels of diesel exhaust
pollutants in those locations. The major
difference between ambient levels of
diesel particulate and exposure levels
for diesel particulate is that exposure
accounts for a person moving from
location to location, proximity to the
emission source, and whether the
exposure occurs in an enclosed
environment.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
1. Occupational Exposures
Occupational exposures to diesel
exhaust from mobile sources, including
locomotive engines and marine diesel
engines, can be several orders of
magnitude greater than typical
exposures in the non-occupationally
exposed population.
Over the years, diesel particulate
exposures have been measured for a
number of occupational groups resulting
in a wide range of exposures from 2 to
1,280 µg/m 3 for a variety of
occupations. Studies have shown that
miners and railroad workers typically
have higher diesel exposure levels than
other occupational groups studied,
including firefighters, truck dock
workers, and truck drivers (both short
and long haul).52 As discussed in the
Diesel HAD, the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) has estimated a total of
1,400,000 workers are occupationally
exposed to diesel exhaust from on-road
and nonroad vehicles including
locomotive and marine diesel engines.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
2. Elevated Concentrations and Ambient
Exposures in Mobile Source-Impacted
Areas
Regions immediately downwind of
rail yards and marine ports may
experience elevated ambient
concentrations of directly-emitted PM2.5
from diesel engines. Due to the unique
nature of rail yards and marine ports,
emissions from a large number of diesel
engines are concentrated in a small area.
Furthermore, emissions occur at or near
ground level, allowing emissions of
diesel engines to reach nearby receptors
without fully mixing with background
air.
A recent study conducted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
examined the air quality impacts of
railroad operations at the J.R. Davis Rail
Yard, the largest rail facility in the
western United States. 53 The yard
occupies 950 acres along a one-quarter
mile wide and four mile long section of
land in Roseville, CA. The study
developed an emissions inventory for
the facility for the year 2000 and
modeled ambient concentrations of
diesel PM using a well-accepted
dispersion model (ISCST3). The study
estimated substantially elevated
concentrations in an area 5,000 meters
from the facility, with higher
concentrations closer to the rail yard.
Using local meteorological data, annual
average contributions from the rail yard
to ambient diesel PM concentrations
under prevailing wind conditions were
1.74, 1.18, 0.80, and 0.25 µg/m 3 at
receptors located 200, 500, 1000, and
5000 meters from the yard, respectively.
Several tens of thousands of people live
within the area estimated to experience
substantial increases in annual average
ambient PM2.5 as a result of rail yard
emissions.
Another study from CARB evaluated
air quality impacts of diesel engine
emissions within the Ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles in California,
one of the largest ports in the U.S.54
Like the earlier rail yard study, the port
study employed the ISCST3 dispersion
model. Also using local meteorological
data, annual average concentrations
were substantially elevated over an area
exceeding 200,000 acres. Because the
ports are located near heavily-populated
areas, the modeling indicated that over
53 Hand, R.; Pingkuan, D.; Servin, A.; Hunsaker,
L.; Suer, C. (2004) Roseville rail yard study.
California Air Resources Board. [Online at https://
www.arb.ca.gov/ diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm].
54 Di, P.; Servin, A.; Rosenkranz, K.; Schwehr, B.;
Tran, H. (2006) Diesel particulate matter exposure
assessment study for the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach. California Air Resources Board.
[Online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/
marinevess/marinevess.htm].
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
700,000 people lived in areas with at
least 0.3 µg/m3 of port-related diesel PM
in ambient air, about 360,000 people
lived in areas with at least 0.6 µg/m 3 of
diesel PM, and about 50,000 people
lived in areas with at least 1.5 µg/m 3 of
ambient diesel PM directly from the
port.
Overall, while these studies focus on
only two large marine port and railroad
facilities, they highlight the substantial
contribution these facilities make to
elevated ambient concentrations in
populated areas.
We have recently initiated a study to
better understand the populations that
are living near rail yards and marine
ports nationally. As part of the study, a
computer geographic information
system (GIS) is being used to identify
the locations and property boundaries of
these facilities nationally, and to
determine the size and demographic
characteristics of the population living
near these facilities. We anticipate that
the results of this study will be
complete in 2007 and we intend to add
this report to the public docket.
(a) Gaseous Air Toxics—Benzene, 1,3butadiene, 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
55 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of
the Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) database
(https://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
subchronic,56 or acute 57 inhalation
exposures. These include neurological,
cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and
respiratory effects as well as effects on
the immune and reproductive systems.
Benzene: The EPA’s Integrated Risk
Information (IRIS) database lists
benzene as a known human carcinogen
(causing leukemia) by all routes of
exposure, and that exposure is
associated with additional health
effects, including genetic changes in
both humans and animals and increased
proliferation of bone marrow cells in
mice.58 59 60 EPA states in its IRIS
database that data indicate a causal
relationship between benzene exposure
and acute lymphocytic leukemia and
suggests a relationship between benzene
exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic
leukemia and chronic lymphocytic
leukemia. A number of adverse
noncancer health effects including
blood disorders, such as preleukemia
and aplastic anemia, have also been
associated with long-term exposure to
benzene.61 62 The most sensitive
noncancer effect observed in humans,
based on current data, is the depression
of the absolute lymphocyte count in
blood.63 64 In addition, recent work,
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.
58 U.S. EPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information
System File for Benzene. This material is available
electronically at https://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
https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
including studies sponsored by the
Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides
evidence that biochemical responses are
occurring at lower levels of benzene
exposure than previously
known.65 66 67 68 EPA’s IRIS program has
not yet evaluated these new data.
1,3-Butadiene: EPA has characterized
1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to
humans by inhalation.69 70 The specific
mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced
carcinogenesis are unknown. However,
it is virtually certain that the
carcinogenic effects are mediated by
genotoxic metabolites of 1,3-butadiene.
Animal data suggest that females may be
more sensitive than males for cancer
effects; while there are insufficient data
in humans from which to draw
conclusions about sensitive
subpopulations. 1,3-Butadiene also
causes a variety of reproductive and
developmental effects in mice; no
human data on these effects are
available. The most sensitive effect was
ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime
bioassay of female mice.71
Formaldehyde: Since 1987, EPA has
classified formaldehyde as a probable
human carcinogen based on evidence in
humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and
monkeys.72 EPA is currently reviewing
recently published epidemiological
data. For instance, recently released
research conducted by the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) found an
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.
69 U.S. EPA. 2002. Health Assessment of 1,3Butadiene. 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 https://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/
buta-sup.pdf.
70 U.S. EPA. 2002. ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0)’’ Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC. https://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.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15959
increased risk of nasopharyngeal cancer
and lymphohematopoietic malignancies
such as leukemia among workers
exposed to formaldehyde.73 74 NCI is
currently performing an update of these
studies. A recent National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) study of garment workers also
found increased risk of death due to
leukemia among workers exposed to
formaldehyde.75 Based on the
developments of the last decade, in
2004, the working group of the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) concluded that
formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans
(Group 1), on the basis of sufficient
evidence in humans and sufficient
evidence in experimental animals—a
higher classification than previous IARC
evaluations.
Formaldehyde exposure also causes a
range of noncancer health effects,
including irritation of the eyes (tearing
of the eyes and increased blinking) and
mucous membranes.
Acetaldehyde: Acetaldehyde is
classified in EPA’s IRIS database as a
probable human carcinogen, based on
nasal tumors in rats, and is considered
toxic by the inhalation, oral, and
intravenous routes.76 The primary acute
effect of exposure to acetaldehyde
vapors is irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract.77 The agency is
currently conducting a reassessment of
the health hazards from inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde.
Acrolein: Acrolein is intensely
irritating to humans when inhaled, with
acute exposure resulting in upper
respiratory tract irritation and
congestion. EPA determined in 2003
using the 1999 draft cancer guidelines
that the human carcinogenic potential of
acrolein could not be determined
because the available data were
inadequate. No information was
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.
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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0290.htm.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15960
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
available on the carcinogenic effects of
acrolein in humans and the animal data
provided inadequate evidence of
carcinogenicity.78
Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM):
POM is generally defined as a large class
of organic compounds which have
multiple benzene rings and a boiling
point greater than 100 degrees Celsius.
Many of the compounds included in the
class of compounds known as POM are
classified by EPA as probable human
carcinogens based on animal data. One
of these compounds, naphthalene, is
discussed separately below.
Recent studies have found that
maternal exposures to PAHs in a
population of pregnant women were
associated with several adverse birth
outcomes, including low birth weight
and reduced length at birth, as well as
impaired cognitive development at age
three.79 80 EPA has not yet evaluated
these recent studies.
Naphthalene: Naphthalene is found in
small quantities in gasoline and diesel
fuels but is primarily a product of
combustion. EPA recently released an
external review draft of a reassessment
of the inhalation carcinogenicity of
naphthalene.81 The draft reassessment
recently completed external peer
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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 https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0364.htm.
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.
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 https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
review.82 Based on external peer review
comments, additional analyses are being
considered. California EPA has released
a new risk assessment for naphthalene,
and the IARC has reevaluated
naphthalene and re-classified it as
Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to
humans.83 Naphthalene also causes a
number of chronic non-cancer effects in
animals, including abnormal cell
changes and growth in respiratory and
nasal tissues.84
In addition to reducing substantial
amounts of NOX and PM2.5 emissions
from locomotive and marine diesel
engines, the standards being proposed
today would also reduce air toxics
emitted from these engines. This will
help mitigate some of the adverse health
effects associated with operation of
these engines.
C. Other Environmental Effects
There is a number of public welfare
effects associated with the presence of
ozone and PM2.5 in the ambient air. In
this section we discuss the impact of
PM2.5 on visibility and materials and the
impact of ozone on plants, including
trees, agronomic crops and urban
ornamentals.
(1) Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree
to which the atmosphere is transparent
to visible light.85 Visibility impairment
82 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
(2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Naphthalene. August 2004. https://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 https://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manifests in two principal ways: as
local visibility impairment and as
regional haze.86 Local visibility
impairment may take the form of a
localized plume, a band or layer of
discoloration appearing well above the
terrain as a result of complex local
meteorological conditions.
Alternatively, local visibility
impairment may manifest as an urban
haze, sometimes referred to as a ‘‘brown
cloud’’. This urban haze is largely
caused by emissions from multiple
sources in the urban areas and is not
typically attributable to only one nearby
source or to long-range transport. The
second type of visibility impairment,
regional haze, usually results from
multiple pollution sources spread over
a large geographic region. Regional haze
can impair visibility in large regions and
across states.
Visibility is important because it has
direct significance to people’s
enjoyment of daily activities in all parts
of the country. Individuals value good
visibility for the well-being it provides
them directly, where they live and
work, and in places where they enjoy
recreational opportunities. Visibility is
also highly valued in significant natural
areas such as national parks and
wilderness areas and special emphasis
is given to protecting visibility in these
areas. For more information on visibility
see the final 2004 PM AQCD as well as
the 2005 PM Staff Paper.87 88
book can be viewed on the National Academy Press
Web site at https://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
https://epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/January/Day17/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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15961
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Fine particles are the major cause of
reduced visibility in parts of the United
States. EPA is pursuing a two-part
strategy to address visibility. First, to
address the welfare effects of PM on
visibility, EPA set secondary PM2.5
standards which would act in
conjunction with the establishment of a
regional haze program. In setting this
secondary standard EPA concluded that
PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility
in various locations, depending on PM
concentrations and factors such as
chemical composition and average
relative humidity. Second, section 169
of the Clean Air Act provides additional
authority to address existing visibility
impairment and prevent future visibility
impairment in the 156 national parks,
forests and wilderness areas categorized
as mandatory class I federal areas (62 FR
38680–81, July 18, 1997).89 In July 1999
the regional haze rule (64 FR 35714) was
put in place to protect the visibility in
mandatory class I federal areas.
Visibility can be said to be impaired in
both PM2.5 nonattainment areas and
mandatory class I federal areas.90
Locomotives and marine engines
contribute to visibility concerns in these
areas through their primary PM2.5
emissions and their NOX emissions
which contribute to the formation of
secondary PM2.5.
federal areas.91 92 The mandatory federal
class I areas are listed in Chapter 2 of
the draft RIA for this action. The areas
that have design values above the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS are also listed in Chapter
2 of the draft RIA for this action.
Current Visibility Impairment
Recently designated PM2.5
nonattainment areas indicate that, as of
March 2, 2006, almost 90 million people
live in nonattainment areas for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, at least these
populations would likely be
experiencing visibility impairment, as
well as many thousands of individuals
who travel to these areas. In addition,
while visibility trends have improved in
mandatory class I federal areas the most
recent data show that these areas
continue to suffer from visibility
impairment. In summary, visibility
impairment is experienced throughout
the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban
areas, and remote mandatory class I
Recent modeling for this proposed
rule was used to project visibility
conditions in the 116 mandatory class I
federal areas across the U.S. in 2020 and
2030 resulting from the proposed
locomotive and marine diesel engine
standards. The results suggest that
improvement in visibility would occur
in all class I federal areas although areas
would continue to have annual average
deciview levels above background in
2020 and 2030. Table II–2 groups class
I federal areas by regions and illustrates
that regardless of geographic area,
reductions in PM2.5 emissions from this
rule would benefit visibility in each
region of the U.S. in mandatory class I
federal areas.
Future Visibility Impairment
TABLE II–2.—SUMMARY OF MODELED 2030 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN MANDATORY CLASS I FEDERAL AREAS
[Annual average deciview]
Predicted 2030
visibility baseline
w/o rule rule
Region
Predicted 2030
visibility with rule
control
Change in annual
average deciview
Eastern
Southeast .............................................................................................................
Northeast/Midwest ...............................................................................................
17.52
14.85
17.45
14.80
.07
.05
9.36
9.99
8.37
9.11
10.97
9.32
9.92
8.33
9.05
10.91
.04
.07
.04
.06
.06
Western
Southwest ............................................................................................................
West (CA–NV–UT) ..............................................................................................
Rocky Mountain ...................................................................................................
Northwest .............................................................................................................
National Class I Area Average ............................................................................
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
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
secondary NAAQS equal to the primary standards
for both PM2.5 and PM10¥2.5. EPA also is taking
comment on whether to set a separate PM2.5
standard, designed to address visibility (principally
in urban areas), on potential levels for that standard
within a range of 20 to 30 µg/m3, and on averaging
times for the standard within a range of four to eight
daylight hours.
91 US EPA, Air Quality Designations and
Classifications for the Fine Particles (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, December
17, 2004. (70 FR 943, Jan 5. 2005) This document
is also available on the Web at: https://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/.
92 US EPA. Regional Haze Regulations, July 1,
1999. (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15962
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
other, more subtle plant and ecosystems
impacts. These include increased
susceptibility of plants to insect attack,
disease, harsh weather, interspecies
competition and overall decreased plant
vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on
forest and other natural vegetation can
potentially lead to species shifts and
loss from the affected ecosystems,
resulting in a loss or reduction in
associated ecosystem goods and
services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to
leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic
value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and
wilderness areas. The final 2006 Criteria
Document presents more detailed
information on ozone effects on
vegetation and ecosystems.
As discussed above, locomotive and
marine diesel engine emissions of NOX
contribute to ozone and therefore the
proposed NOX standards will help
reduce crop damage and stress on
vegetation from ozone.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(3) Acid Deposition
Acid deposition, or acid rain as it is
commonly known, occurs when NOX
and SO2 react in the atmosphere with
water, oxygen and oxidants to form
various acidic compounds that later fall
to earth in the form of precipitation or
dry deposition of acidic particles. It
contributes to damage of trees at high
elevations and in extreme cases may
cause lakes and streams to become so
acidic that they cannot support aquatic
life. In addition, acid deposition
accelerates the decay of building
materials and paints, including
irreplaceable buildings, statues, and
sculptures that are part of our nation’s
cultural heritage.
The proposed NOX standards would
help reduce acid deposition, thereby
helping to reduce acidity levels in lakes
and streams throughout the country and
helping accelerate the recovery of
acidified lakes and streams and the
revival of ecosystems adversely affected
by acid deposition. Reduced acid
deposition levels will also help reduce
stress on forests, thereby accelerating
reforestation efforts and improving
timber production. Deterioration of
historic buildings and monuments,
vehicles, and other structures exposed
to acid rain and dry acid deposition also
will be reduced, and the costs borne to
prevent acid-related damage may also
decline. While the reduction in nitrogen
acid deposition will be roughly
proportional to the reduction in NOX
emissions, the precise impact of this
rule will differ across different areas.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(4) Eutrophication and Nitrification
The NOX standards proposed in this
action will help reduce the airborne
nitrogen deposition that contributes to
eutrophication of watersheds,
particularly in aquatic systems where
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
represents a significant portion of total
nitrogen loadings.
Eutrophication is the accelerated
production of organic matter,
particularly algae, in a water body. This
increased growth can cause numerous
adverse ecological effects and economic
impacts, including nuisance algal
blooms, dieback of underwater plants
due to reduced light penetration, and
toxic plankton blooms. Algal and
plankton blooms can also reduce the
level of dissolved oxygen, which can
adversely affect fish and shellfish
populations. In recent decades, human
activities have greatly accelerated
nutrient impacts, such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, causing excessive growth
of algae and leading to degraded water
quality and associated impairment of
fresh water and estuarine resources for
human uses.93
Severe and persistent eutrophication
often directly impacts human activities.
For example, losses in the nation’s
fishery resources may be directly caused
by fish kills associated with low
dissolved oxygen and toxic blooms.
Declines in tourism occur when low
dissolved oxygen causes noxious smells
and floating mats of algal blooms create
unfavorable aesthetic conditions. Risks
to human health increase when the
toxins from algal blooms accumulate in
edible fish and shellfish, and when
toxins become airborne, causing
respiratory problems due to inhalation.
According to the NOAA report, more
than half of the nation’s estuaries have
moderate to high expressions of at least
one of these symptoms ‘‘ an indication
that eutrophication is well developed in
more than half of U.S. estuaries.94
(5) Materials Damage and Soiling
The deposition of airborne particles
can reduce the aesthetic appeal of
buildings and culturally important
articles through soiling, and can
contribute directly (or in conjunction
with other pollutants) to structural
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.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
damage by means of corrosion or
erosion.95 Particles affect materials
principally by promoting and
accelerating the corrosion of metals, by
degrading paints, and by deteriorating
building materials such as concrete and
limestone. Particles contribute to these
effects because of their electrolytic,
hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and
their ability to adsorb corrosive gases
(principally sulfur dioxide). The rate of
metal corrosion depends on a number of
factors, including the deposition rate
and nature of the pollutant; the
influence of the metal protective
corrosion film; the amount of moisture
present; variability in the
electrochemical reactions; the presence
and concentration of other surface
electrolytes; and the orientation of the
metal surface.
The PM2.5 standards proposed in this
action will help reduce the airborne
particles that contribute to materials
damage and soiling.
D. Other Criteria Pollutants Affected by
This NPRM
Locomotive and marine diesel engines
account for about 1 percent of the
mobile sources carbon monoxide (CO)
inventory. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a
colorless, odorless gas produced
through the incomplete combustion of
carbon-based fuels. The current primary
NAAQS for CO are 35 ppm for the 1hour 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15963
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
can be found in the Air Quality Criteria
for Carbon Monoxide.96
E. Emissions From Locomotive and
Marine Diesel Engines
(1) Overview
The engine standards being proposed
in this rule would affect emissions of
particulate matter (PM2.5), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and air toxics.
Carbon monoxide is not specifically
targeted in this proposal although the
technologies applied to control these
other pollutants are expected to also
reduce CO emissions.
Locomotive and marine diesel engine
emissions are expected to continue to be
a significant part of the mobile source
emissions inventory both nationally and
in ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas
in the coming years. In the absence of
new emissions standards, we expect
overall emissions from these engines to
decrease modestly over the next ten to
fifteen years than remain relatively flat
through 2025 due to existing regulations
such as lower fuel sulfur requirements,
the phase in of locomotive and marine
diesel Tier 1 and Tier 2 engine
standards, and the Tier 0 locomotive
remanufacturing requirements.
Beginning thereafter, emission
inventories from these engines would
once again begin increasing due to
growth in the locomotive and marine
sectors. Under today’s proposed
standards, by 2030, annual NOX
emissions from these engines would be
reduced by 765,000 tons, PM2.5
emissions by 28,000 tons, and VOC
emissions by 42,000 tons.
In this section we first present base
case emissions inventory contributions
for locomotive and marine diesel
engines and other mobile sources
assuming no further emission controls
beyond those already in place. The 2001
inventory numbers were developed and
used as an input into our air quality
modeling. Individual sub-sections
which follow discuss PM2.5, NOX, and
VOC pollutants, in terms of expected
emission reductions associated with the
proposed standards. The tables and
figures illustrate the Agency’s analysis
of current and future emissions
contributions from locomotive and
marine diesel engines.
(2) Estimated Inventory Contribution
Locomotive and marine diesel engine
emissions contribute to nationwide PM,
NOX, VOC, CO, and air toxics
inventories. Our current baseline and
future year estimates for NOX and PM2.5
inventories (50-state) are set out in
Tables II–3 and II–4. Based on our
analysis undertaken for this rulemaking,
we estimate that in 2001 locomotives
and marine diesel engines contributed
almost 60,000 tons (18 percent) to the
national mobile source diesel PM2.5
inventory and about 2.0 million tons (16
percent) to the mobile source NOX
inventory. In 2030, absent the standards
proposed today, these engines would
contribute about 50,000 tons (65
percent) to the mobile source diesel
PM2.5 inventory and almost 1.6 million
tons (35 percent) to the mobile source
NOX inventory.
The national locomotives and marine
diesel engine PM2.5 and NOX
inventories in 2030 would be roughly
twice as large as the combined PM2.5
and NOX inventories from on-highway
diesel and land-based nonroad diesel
engines. In absolute terms—locomotives
and marine diesel engines, in 2030,
would annually emit 22,000 more tons
of PM2.5 and 890,000 more tons of NOX
than all highway and nonroad diesels
combined. This occurs because EPA has
already taken steps to bring engine
emissions from both on-highway and
nonroad diesels to near-zero levels,
while locomotives and marine diesel
engines continue to meet relatively
modest emission requirements. Table II–
4 shows that in 2001 the land-based
nonroad diesel category contributed
about 160,000 tons of PM2.5 emissions
and by 2030 they drop to under 18,000
tons. Likewise, in 2001, annual PM2.5
emissions from highway diesel engines
totaled about 110,000 tons falling in
2030 to about 10,000 tons. Table II–3
shows a similar downward trend
occurring for annual NOX emissions. In
2001, NOX emissions from highway
diesel engines’ amounted to over 3.7
million tons but by 2030 they fall to
about 260,000 tons. Finally, land-based
nonroad diesels in 2001 emitted over
1.5 million tons of NOX but by 2030
these emissions drop to approximately
430,000 tons.
Marine diesel engine and locomotive
inventories were developed using
multiple methodologies. Chapter 3 of
the draft RIA provides a detailed
explanation of our approach. In
summary, the quality of data available
for locomotive inventories made it
possible to develop more detailed
estimates of fleet composition and
emission rates than we have previously
done. Locomotive emissions were
calculated based on estimated current
and projected fuel consumption rates.
Emissions were calculated separately for
the following locomotive categories:
line-haul locomotives in large railroads,
switching locomotives in large railroads
(including Class II/III switch railroads
owned by Class I railroads), other linehaul locomotives (i.e., local and regional
railroads), other switch/terminal
locomotives, and passenger
locomotives. Our inventories for marine
diesel engines were created using the
inventory for marine diesel engines up
to 30 liters per cylinder displacement
including recreational, commercial, and
auxiliary applications was developed by
using a methodology based on engine
population, hours of use, average engine
loads, and in-use emissions factors.
TABLE II–3.—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL NOX BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
2001
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Category
NOX short
tons
Locomotive ...............................................
Recreational Marine Diesel ......................
Commercial Marine (C1 & C2) ................
Land-Based Nonroad Diesel ....................
Commercial Marine (C3)* ........................
Small Nonroad SI .....................................
Recreational Marine SI ............................
SI Recreational Vehicles ..........................
Large Nonroad SI (>25hp) .......................
2030
Percent of
mobile source
1,118,786
40,437
833,963
1,548,236
224,100
100,319
42,252
5,488
321,098
Percent of
total
9.0
0.3
6.7
12.5
1.8
0.8
0.3
0.0
2.6
5.1
0.2
3.8
7.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
1.5
Percent of
mobile source
NOX
854,226
48,155
679,973
434,466
531,641
114,287
92,188
20,136
46,253
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Percent of
total short tons
19.0
1.1
15.1
9.7
11.8
2.5
2.1
0.4
1.0
8.1
0.5
6.4
4.1
5.0
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.4
15964
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–3.—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL NOX BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS—Continued
2001
Category
NOX short
tons
Aircraft ......................................................
Total Off Highway ....................................
Highway Diesel ........................................
Highway non-diesel ..................................
Total Highway ..........................................
Total Diesel (distillate) Mobile ..................
Total Mobile Sources ...............................
Stationary Point and Area Sources .........
Total Man-Made Sources ........................
2030
Percent of
mobile source
83,764
4,318,443
3,750,886
4,354,430
8,105,316
7,292,308
12,423,758
9,355,659
21,779,418
Percent of
total
0.7
34.8
30.2
35.0
65.2
58.7
100
-
Percent of
mobile source
0.4
19.8
17.2
20.0
37.2
33.5
57.0
43.0
100
Percent of
total short tons
2.6
65.5
5.8
28.7
34.5
50.7
100
-
NOX
1.1
27.7
2.5
12.2
14.6
21.5
42.4
57.6
100
118,740
2,940,066
260,915
1,289,780
1,550,695
2,277,735
4,490,761
6,111,866
10,602,627
* 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
Category
PM2.5 short
tons
Locomotive .......................................
Recreational Marine Diesel ..............
Commercial Marine (C1 & C2) ........
Land-Based Nonroad Diesel ............
Commercial Marine (C3) ..................
Small Nonroad SI .............................
Recreational Marine SI ....................
SI Recreational Vehicles ..................
Large Non road SI (>25hp) .............
Aircraft ..............................................
Total Off Highway ............................
Highway Diesel ................................
Highway non-diesel ..........................
Total Highway ..................................
Total Diesel (distillate) Mobile ..........
Total Mobile Sources .......................
Stationary Point and Area Sources
Diesel ............................................
Stationary Point and Areas Sources
non-diesel .....................................
Total Stationary Point and Area
Sources ........................................
Total Man-Made Sources .........
Percent of
diesel mobile
2030
Percent of
mobile source
PM2.5 short
tons
Percent of
diesel mobile
Percent of
mobile source
29,660
1,096
28,728
164,180
20,023
25,575
17,101
12,301
1,610
5,664
305,939
109,952
50,277
160,229
333,618
466,168
8.9
0.3
8.6
49.2
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
33.0
..........................
..........................
100
..........................
6.36
0.24
6.16
35.2
4.30
5.5
3.7
2.6
0.3
1.22
65.6
23.6
10.8
34.4
71.6
100
25,109
1,141
23,758
17,934
52,682
35,761
6,378
9,953
2,844
8,569
184,129
10,072
56,734
66,806
78,014
250,934
32.2
1.5
30.5
23.0
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
12.9
..........................
..........................
100
..........................
10.01
0.45
9.47
7.1
20.99
14.3
2.5
4.0
1.1
3.41
73.4
4.0
22.6
26.6
31.1
100
3,189
..........................
..........................
2,865
..........................
..........................
1,963,264
..........................
..........................
1,817,722
..........................
..........................
1,966,453
2,432,621
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
1,820,587
2,071,521
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
(3) PM2.5 Emission Reductions
In 2001 annual emissions from
locomotive and marine diesel engines
totaled about 60,000 tons. Table II–4
shows the distribution of these PM2.5
emissions: locomotives contributed
about 30,000 tons, recreational marine
diesel roughly 1,000 tons, and
commercial marine diesel (C1 and C2)
29,000 tons. Due to current standards,
annual PM2.5 emissions from these
engines drop to 50,000 tons in 2030
with roughly proportional emission
reductions occurring in both the
locomotive and commercial marine
diesel categories while the recreational
marine diesel category experiences a
slight increase in PM2.5 emissions. Both
Tables II–5 and Figure II–4 show PM2.5
emissions nearly flat through 2030
before beginning to rise again due to
growth in these sectors.
Table II–5 shows how the proposed
rule would begin reducing PM2.5
emissions from the current national
inventory baseline starting in 2015
when annual reductions of 7,000 tons
would occur. By 2020 that number
would grow to 15,000 tons of PM2.5, by
2030 to 28,000 annual tons, and
reductions would continue to grow
through 2040 to about 39,000 tons of
PM2.5 annually.
TABLE II–5.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL PM2.5 EMISSIONS
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
[Short tons/year]
2015
Without Proposed Rule ....................................................................................................................
With Proposed Rule .........................................................................................................................
Reductions From Proposed Rule ....................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2020
2030
2040
51,000
44,000
7,000
50,000
35,000
15,000
50,000
22,000
28,000
54,000
15,000
39,000
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15965
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
TABLE II–6.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL CONTRIBUTION TO MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL PM2.5 INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030
Metropolitan area
(MSA)
National Average ......
Los Angeles, CA .......
Houston, TX ..............
Chicago, IL ...............
Philadelphia, PA .......
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH .................
St. Louis, MO ............
Seattle, WA ...............
Kansas City, MO ......
Baltimore, MD ...........
Cincinnati, OH ..........
Boston, MA ...............
Huntington-Ashland
WV-KY-OH ............
New York, NY ...........
San Joaquin Valley,
CA .........................
Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN .........................
Atlanta, GA ...............
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ ....
Birmingham, AL ........
Detroit, MI .................
Chattanooga, TN ......
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
2001
Percent
2030
Percent
18
32
42
25
20
65
73
85
70
64
26
22
17
21
23
24
8
72
68
61
68
68
70
41
53
4
91
21
9
39
11
6
5
17
5
22
48
30
27
58
26
70
Sfmt 4702
TABLE II–6.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL CONTRIBUTION TO MOBILE SOURCE DIESEL PM2.5 INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030—Continued
Metropolitan area
(MSA)
Indianapolis, IN .........
2001
Percent
5
2030
Percent
30
(4) NOX Emissions Reductions
In 2001 annual emissions from
locomotive and marine diesel engines
totaled about 2.0 million tons. Table II–
3 shows the distribution of these NOX
emissions: locomotives contributed
about 1.1 million tons, recreational
marine diesel roughly 40,000 tons, and
commercial marine diesel (C1 and C2)
834,000 tons. Due to current standards,
annual NOX emission from these
engines drop to 1.6 million tons in 2030
with roughly proportional emission
reductions occurring in both the
locomotive and commercial marine
diesel categories while the recreational
marine diesel category experiences an
increase in PM2.5 emissions. Both Table
II–7 and Figure II–5 show NOX
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.003
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Although this proposed rule results in
large nationwide PM2.5 inventory
reductions, it would also help urban
areas that have significant locomotive
and marine diesel engine emissions in
their inventories. Table II–6 shows the
percent these engines contribute to the
mobile source diesel PM2.5 inventory in
a variety of urban areas in 2001 and
2030. In 2001, a number of metropolitan
areas saw locomotives and marine
diesel engines contribute a much larger
share to their local inventories than the
national average including Houston (42
percent), Los Angeles (32 percent), and
Baltimore (23 percent). In 2030, each of
these metropolitan areas would
continue to see locomotive and marine
diesel engines comprise a larger portion
of their mobile source diesel PM2.5
inventory than the national average as
would other communities including
Cleveland (72 percent), Chicago (70
percent) and Chattanooga (70 percent).
15966
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
emissions remaining nearly flat through
2030 before beginning to rise again due
to growth in these sectors.
Table II–7 shows how the proposed
rule would begin reducing NOX
emissions from the current national
inventory baseline starting in 2015
when annual reductions of 84,000 tons
would occur. By 2020 that number
would grow to 293,000 tons of NOX, by
2030 to 765,000 annual tons, and
reductions would continue to grow
through 2040 to about 1.1 million tons
of NOX annually.
These numbers are comparable to
emission reductions projected in 2030
for our already established nonroad Tier
4 program. Table II–8 provides the 2030
NOX emission reductions (and PM
reductions) for this proposed rule
compared to the Heavy-Duty Highway
rule and Nonroad Tier 4 rule. The 2030
NOX reductions of about 740,000 tons
for the Nonroad Tier 4 are similar to
those from this proposed rule.
TABLE II–7.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL NOX EMISSIONS
[Short tons/year]
2015
Without Proposed Rule ............................................................................................
With Proposed Rule .................................................................................................
Reductions From Proposed Rule ............................................................................
2020
2030
2040
1,633,000
1,549,000
84,000
1,582,000
1,289,000
293,000
1,582,000
817,000
765,000
1,703,000
579,000
1,124,000
TABLE II–8.—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT
MOBILE SOURCE RULES
TABLE II–8.—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT
MOBILE SOURCE RULES—Continued
TABLE II–8.—PROJECTED 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECENT
MOBILE SOURCE RULES—Continued
[Short tons]
[Short tons]
[Short tons]
NOX
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Proposed Locomotive
and Marine ............
PM2.5
NOX
Nonroad Tier 4 .........
765,000
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
PM2.5
738,000
129,000
Rule
NOX
Heavy-Duty Highway
2,600,000
PM2.5
109,000
28,000
Although this proposed rule results in
large nationwide NOX inventory
reductions, it would also help urban
areas that have significant
concentrations of locomotive and
marine diesel engines in their
inventories. Table II–9 shows the
percent these engines contribute to the
mobile source diesel NOX inventory in
a variety of urban areas in 2001 and
2030. In 2001, a number of metropolitan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Rule
Jkt 211001
areas saw locomotives and marine
diesel engines contribute a much larger
share to their local inventories than the
national average including Houston (32
percent), Kansas City (20 percent), and
Los Angeles (19 percent). In 2030, each
of these metropolitan areas would
continue to see locomotive and marine
diesel engines comprise a larger portion
of their mobile source diesel PM2.5
inventory than the national average as
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would other communities including
Birmingham (43 percent), Chicago (42
percent) and Chattanooga (40 percent).
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.004
Rule
15967
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–9.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL ENGINE CONTRIBUTION
TO MOBILE SOURCE NOX INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030
Metropolitan areas
(MSA)
2001
Percent
National Average ......
Los Angeles, CA .......
Houston, TX ..............
Chicago, IL ...............
Philadelphia, PA .......
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH .................
New York, NY ...........
St. Louis, MO ............
Seattle, WA ...............
Kansas City, MO ......
Cincinnati, OH ..........
Huntington-Ashland,
WV-KY-OH ............
Boston, MA ...............
San Joaquin Valley,
CA .........................
2030
Percent
16
19
32
20
14
35
38
45
42
19
19
5
16
14
20
18
40
8
37
31
44
39
39
7
37
11
9
26
TABLE II–9.—LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE DIESEL ENGINE CONTRIBUTION
TO MOBILE SOURCE NOX INVENTORIES IN SELECTED METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN 2001 AND 2030—Continued
Metropolitan areas
(MSA)
2001
Percent
Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN .........................
Atlanta, GA ...............
Birmingham, AL ........
Baltimore, MD ...........
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ ....
Detroit, MI .................
Chattanooga, TN ......
Indianapolis, IN .........
2030
Percent
9
5
17
8
6
3
16
5
20
13
43
10
15
9
40
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
III. Emission Standards
This section details the emission
standards, implementation dates, and
other major requirements of the
proposed program. Following brief
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
summaries of the types of locomotives
and marine engines covered and of the
existing standards, we describe the
proposed provisions for setting:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2030
2040
72,000
57,000
15,000
71,000
44,000
27,000
72,000
30,000
42,000
78,000
24,000
54,000
• Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for
newly-built locomotives,
• Standards for remanufactured Tier
0, 1, and 2 locomotives,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.005
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Without Proposed Rule ....................................................................................................................
With Proposed Rule .........................................................................................................................
Reductions From Proposed Rule ....................................................................................................
2020
15968
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• Standards and other provisions for
diesel switch locomotives,
• Requirements to reduce idling
locomotive emissions, as well as
possible ways to encourage emission
reductions through the optimization of
multi-locomotive teams (consists), and
• Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for
newly-built marine diesel engines.
As discussed in sections I.A(2) and
VII.A(2), we are also soliciting comment
on setting standards for remanufactured
marine diesel engines.
A detailed discussion of the
technological feasibility of the proposed
standards follows the description of the
proposed program. The section
concludes with a discussion of
considerations and activities
surrounding emissions from large
Category 3 engines used on ocean-going
vessels, although we are not proposing
provisions for these engines in this
rulemaking.
To ensure that the benefits of the
standards are realized in-use and
throughout the useful life of these
engines, and to incorporate lessons
learned over the last few years from the
existing test and compliance program,
we are also proposing revised test
procedures and related certification
requirements. In addition, we are
proposing to continue the averaging,
banking, and trading (ABT) emissions
credits provisions to demonstrate
compliance with the standards. These
provisions are described further in
section IV.
A. What Locomotives and Marine
Engines Are Covered?
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
The regulations being proposed
would affect locomotives currently
regulated under part 92 and marine
diesel engines and vessels currently
regulated under parts 89 and 94, as
described below.97
With some exceptions, the regulations
apply for all locomotives that operate
extensively within the United States.
See section IV.B for a discussion of the
exemption for locomotives that are used
only incidentally within the U.S. The
exceptions include historic steampowered locomotives and locomotives
powered solely by an external source of
electricity. In addition, the regulations
generally do not apply to existing
locomotives owned by railroads that are
classified as small businesses.98
97 All
of the regulatory parts referenced in this
preamble are parts in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, unless otherwise noted.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Furthermore, engines used in
locomotive-type vehicles with less than
750 kW (1006 hp) total power (used
primarily for railway maintenance),
engines used only for hotel power (for
passenger railcar equipment), and
engines that are used in self-propelled
passenger-carrying railcars, are
excluded from these regulations. The
engines used in these smaller
locomotive-type vehicles are generally
subject to the nonroad engine
requirements of Parts 89 and 1039.
There are currently three tiers of
locomotive emission standards. The
Tier 0 standards apply only to
locomotives originally manufactured
before 2002, the Tier 1 standards apply
to new locomotives manufactured in
2002–2004, and the Tier 2 standards
apply to new locomotives manufactured
in 2005 and later. Under the existing
regulations, the applicability of the Tier
1 and Tier 2 standards is based on the
date of manufacture of the locomotive,
rather than the engine. Thus, a newly
manufactured engine in 2005 that is
used to repower a 1990 model year
locomotive would be subject to the Tier
0 emission standards, which are also
applicable to all other 1990 model year
locomotives. As described in section
IV.B, we are proposing some changes to
this approach.
The marine diesel engines covered by
this rule would include propulsion
engines used on vessels from
recreational and small fishing boats to
super-yachts, tugs and Great Lakes
freighters, and auxiliary engines ranging
from small gensets to large generators on
ocean-going vessels.99 Marine diesel
engines are categorized both by per
cylinder displacement and by rated
power. Consistent with our existing
marine diesel emission control program,
the proposed standards would apply to
any marine diesel engine with per
cylinder displacement below 30 liters
installed on a vessel flagged or
registered in the United States.
According to our existing definitions, a
marine engine is defined as an engine
that is installed or intended to be
installed on a marine vessel.
While marine diesel engines up to 37
kW (50 hp) are currently covered by our
nonroad Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards,
they were not included in the nonroad
Tier 3 and Tier 4 programs. Instead,
they are covered in this rule, making
this a comprehensive control strategy
for all marine diesel engines below 30
locomotive rule (63 FR 18978, April 16, 1998) for
a complete discussion of the basis and application
of this provision.
99 Marine diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl
displacement are not included in this program. See
Section 3E, below.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
liters per cylinder displacement. This is
a very broad range of engines and they
are grouped into several categories for
the existing standards, as described in
detail in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA.
Consistent with our current marine
diesel engine program, the standards
described in this proposal would apply
to engines manufactured for sale in the
United States or imported into the
United States beginning with the
effective date of the standards. Any
engine installed on a new vessel flagged
or registered in the U.S. would be
required to meet the appropriate
emission limits. Also consistent with
our current marine diesel engine
program, the standards would also
apply to any engine installed for the
first time in a marine vessel flagged or
registered in the U.S. after having been
used in another application subject to
different emission standards. In other
words, an existing nonroad diesel
engine would become a new marine
diesel engine, and subject to the marine
diesel engine standards, when it is
marinized for use in a marine
application.
Our current marine diesel engine
emission controls do not apply to
marine diesel engines on foreign vessels
entering U.S. ports. At this time we
believe it is appropriate to postpone
consideration of the application of our
national standards to engines on foreign
vessels to a future rulemaking that
would consider controls for Category 3
engines on ocean-going vessels. This
will allow us consider the engines on
foreign vessels as an integrated system,
to better evaluate the regulatory options
available for controlling their overall
emission contribution to U.S. ambient
air quality.
Nevertheless, we are soliciting
comment on whether the emission
standards we are proposing in this
action should apply to engines below 30
liters per cylinder displacement
installed on foreign vessels entering
U.S. ports, and to no longer exclude
these engines from the emission
standards under 40 CFR 94.1(b)(3).
Commenters are also invited to suggest
when the standards should apply to
foreign vessels. For example, the
standards could apply based on the date
the engine is built or, consistent with
MARPOL Annex VI, the date the vessel
is built.
B. Existing EPA Standards
NOX emission levels from newly-built
locomotives have been reduced over the
past several years from unregulated
levels of over 13 g/bhp-hr (17 g/kW-hr)
to the current Tier 2 standard level for
newly-built locomotives of 5.5 g/bhp-hr
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15969
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(7.3 g/kW-hr)—a 60 percent
reduction.100 PM reductions on the
order of 50 percent have also been
achieved under a Tier 2 standard level
of 0.20 g/bhp-hr (0.27 g/kW-hr). EPA
emission standards for marine diesel
engines vary somewhat due to the
ranges in size and application of engines
included; however Tier 2 levels for
recreational and commercial marine
engines are generally comparable in
stringency to those adopted for
locomotives, and are now in the process
of phasing in over 2004–2009. See
Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for a complete
listing of the existing standards,
including standards for remanufactured
locomotives.
The Tier 2 emissions reductions have
been achieved largely through engine
calibration optimization and engine
hardware design changes (such as
improved fuel injectors and
turbochargers, increased injection
pressure, intake air after-cooling,
combustion chamber design, reduced oil
consumption and injection timing)
Although these reductions in
locomotive and marine emissions are
important, they only bring today’s
cleanest locomotives and marine diesels
to roughly the emissions levels of new
trucks in the early 1990’s, on the basis
of grams per unit of work done.
C. What Standards Are We Proposing?
(1) Locomotive Standards
(a) Line-Haul Locomotives
We are proposing new emission
standards for newly-built and
remanufactured line-haul locomotives.
Our proposed standards for newly-built
line-haul locomotives would be
implemented in two tiers: First, a new
Tier 3 PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr
(0.13 g/kW-hr) taking effect in 2012,
based on engine design improvements;
second, new Tier 4 standards of 0.03 g/
bhp-hr (0.04 g/kW-hr) for PM, 0.14 g/
bhp-hr (0.19 g/kW-hr) for HC (both
taking effect in 2015), and 1.3 g/bhp-hr
(1.8 g/kW-hr) for NOX (taking effect in
2017), based on the application of the
high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment
technologies now being developed and
introduced in the highway diesel sector.
Our proposed standards for
remanufactured line-haul locomotives
would apply to all Tier 0, 1, and 2
locomotives and are based on engine
design improvements. The feasibility of
the proposed standards and the
technologies involved are discussed in
detail in section III.D. Table III–1
summarizes the proposed line-haul
locomotive standards and
implementation dates. See section
III.C(3) for a discussion of the HC
standards.
TABLE III–1.—PROPOSED LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE STANDARDS
[g/bhp-hr]
Standards apply to:
Date
PM
Remanufactured Tier 0 & 1 ........................................
Remanufactured Tier 2 ...............................................
New Tier 3 ..................................................................
New Tier 4 ..................................................................
2008 as Available, 2010 Required .............................
2008 as Available, 2013 Required .............................
2012 ...........................................................................
PM and HC 2015 NOX 2017 .....................................
0.22
0.10
0.10
0.03
NOX
HC
a 7.4
a 0.55
5.5
5.5
1.3
0.30
0.30
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 NO
X
and HC, respectively.
We have previously regulated
remanufactured locomotive engines
under section 213(a)(5) of the Clean Air
Act as new locomotive engines and we
propose to continue to do so in this rule.
Under our proposed standards, the
existing fleet of locomotives that are
currently subject to Tier 0 standards
(our current remanufactured engine
standards) would need to comply with
a new Tier 0 PM standard of 0.22 g/bhphr (0.30 g/kW-hr). They would also need
to comply with a new Tier 0 NOX linehaul standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr (9.9 g/kWhr), except that Tier 0 locomotives that
were built without a separate coolant
loop for intake air (that is, using engine
coolant for this purpose) would be
subject to a less stringent Tier 0 NOX
standard of 8.0 g/bhp-hr (10.7 g/kW-hr)
on the line-haul cycle.
These non-separate loop locomotives
were generally built before 1993, though
some are of more recent model years.
Because of their age, many of them are
likely to be retired and not
remanufactured again, and many are
entering lower use applications within
the railroad industry. Correspondingly,
their contribution to the locomotive
emissions inventory is diminishing. Our
analysis indicates that it is feasible to
obtain a NOX reduction for them on the
order of 15 percent, from the current
Tier 0 line-haul NOX standard of 9.5 g/
bhp-hr to the proposed 8.0 g/bhp-hr
standard. However, we expect that any
further reduction would require the
addition of a separate intake air coolant
loop, which provides more efficient
cooling and therefore lower NOX. This
would be a fairly expensive hardware
change and could have sizeable impacts
on the locomotive platform layout and
weight constraints. We are aware that
this group of older, non-separate loop
Tier 0 locomotives is fairly diverse, and
that achieving even a 8.0 g/bhp-hr NOX
standard along with a stringent Tier 0
PM standard will be more difficult on
some of these models than on others.
We request comment on whether there
are any locomotive families within this
group for which meeting the proposed
8.0 g/bhp-hr standard may not be
feasible, especially considering the cost
of doing so and the age of the
locomotives involved. Commenters
should discuss feasibility and projected
costs, and should also discuss the extent
to which this concern is mitigated by
the prospect that these locomotives will
be retired rather than remanufactured
anyway, or will be moved to lower
usage switcher or small railroad
applications, and therefore will be less
likely to be remanufactured under the
new Tier 0 standards.
We propose to apply the new Tier 0
standards (and corresponding switchcycle standards) when the locomotive is
remanufactured on or after January 1,
2008. However, if no certified emissions
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(i) Remanufactured Locomotive
Standards
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15970
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
control system exists for the locomotive
before October 31, 2007, these standards
will instead apply 3 months after such
a system is certified, but no later than
January 1, 2010. This would provide an
incentive to develop and certify systems
complying with these standards as early
as possible, but allow the railroad to
avoid having to delay planned rebuilds
if a certified system is not available
when the program is expected to begin
in 2008. We also propose to include a
reasonable cost provision, described in
section IV.B, to protect against the
unlikely event that the only certified
systems made available when this
program starts in 2008 will be
exorbitantly priced.
Although under this approach,
certification of new remanufacture
systems before 2010 is voluntary, we
believe that developers would strive to
certify systems to the new standards as
early as possible, even in 2008, to
establish these products in the market,
especially for the higher volume
locomotive models anticipated to have
significant numbers coming due for
remanufacture in the next few years.
This focus on higher volume products
also maximizes the potential for large
emission reductions very early in this
program, greatly offsetting the effect of
slow turnover to new Tier 3 and Tier 4
locomotives inherent in this sector.
We are also proposing to set new
more stringent standards for
locomotives currently subject to Tier 1
and Tier 2 standards, to apply at the
point of next remanufacture after the
proposed implementation dates. Tier 1
locomotives would need to comply with
the same new PM standard of 0.22 g/
bhp-hr (0.30 g/kW-hr) required of Tier 0
locomotives (they are already subject to
the 7.4 g/bhp-hr (9.9 g/kW-hr) NOX
standard). This in essence expands the
model years covered by the Tier 1
standards from 2002–2004 to roughly
1993–2004, greatly increasing the size of
the Tier 1 fleet while at the same time
reducing emissions from this broadened
fleet. Under the proposal, Tier 2
locomotives on the rails today or built
prior to the start of Tier 3 would need
to comply with a new Tier 2 PM linehaul standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr (0.13 g/
kW-hr). Because this is equal to the Tier
3 standard, it essentially adds the entire
fleet of Tier 2 locomotives to the clean
Tier 3 category over a period of just a
few years, as they go through a
remanufacture cycle.
The implementation schedule for the
new Tier 1 standard would be the same
as the 2008/2010 schedule discussed
above for Tier 0 locomotives. Meeting
the new Tier 2 standard would be
required somewhat later, in 2013,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
reflecting the additional redesign
challenge involved in meeting this more
stringent standard, and the need to
spread the redesign and certification
workload faced by the manufacturers
overall. However, as for Tier 0 and Tier
1 locomotives, we are proposing that if
a certified Tier 2 remanufacture system
meeting the new standard is available
early, anytime after January 1, 2008, this
system would be required to be used,
starting 3 months after it is certified,
subject to a reasonable cost provision as
with early Tier 0 and Tier 1
remanufactures. We request comment
on whether use of certified Tier 2
remanufacture systems should be
required on the same schedule as Tier
3, that is, starting in 2012, given that we
expect the upgraded Tier 2 designs to be
very similar to newly-built Tier 3
designs, and the likelihood that
substantial numbers of Tier 2
locomotives may be approaching their
first scheduled remanufacture by 2012.
These proposed remanufactured
locomotive standards represent PM
reductions of about 50 percent, and (for
Tier 0 locomotives with separate loop
intake air cooling) NOX reductions of
about 20 percent. Significantly, these
reductions would be substantial in the
early years. This would be important to
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) being
developed to achieve attainment with
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS), owing to the 2008 start date
and relatively rapid remanufacture
schedule (roughly every 7 years, though
it varies by locomotive model and age).
(ii) Newly-Built Locomotive Standards
We are requesting comment on
whether additional NOX emission
reductions would be feasible and
appropriate for Tier 3 locomotives in the
2012 timeframe. There are proven diesel
technologies not currently employed in
Tier 2 locomotives that can significantly
reduce NOX emissions, most notably
cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).
Although employed successfully in the
heavy-duty highway diesel sector since
2003, a considerable development and
redesign program would need to be
undertaken by locomotive
manufacturers to apply cooled EGR to
Tier 3 locomotives. This development
work would not be limited to the engine
but would include substantial changes
to the locomotive chassis to handle the
higher levels of heat rejection (engine
cooling demand) required for cooled
EGR. We project that it would require a
similar degree of engineering time and
effort to develop a cooled EGR solution
for locomotive diesel engines as it will
to develop the urea SCR based solution
upon which we are basing our proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Tier 4 NOX standard. Therefore, we
have not considered the application of
cooled EGR in setting our proposed Tier
3 standard.
It may be possible to reoptimize
existing Tier 2 NOX control
technologies, most notably injection
timing retard (used to some degree on
all diesel locomotives), to achieve a
more modest NOX reduction of 10 to 20
percent from the current Tier 2 levels.
In fact, a version of General Electric’s
Tier 2 locomotive is available today that
achieves such NOX reductions for
special applications such as the
California South Coast Locomotive Fleet
Average Emissions Program. In general,
the use of injection timing retard to
control NOX emissions comes with a
tradeoff against fuel economy, durability
and increased maintenance depending
upon the degree to which injection
timing retard is applied. Experience
with on-highway trucks suggests that a
20 percent NOX reduction based solely
on injection timing retard could result
in an increase of fuel consumption as
much as 5 percent. We request comment
on the feasibility and other impacts of
applying technologies such as these in
the Tier 3 timeframe. We also request
comment on the extent to which any
workload-based impediments to
applying such technologies in Tier 3
could be addressed via balancing it by
obtaining less than the proposed NOX
reductions from remanufactured
locomotives. We believe that a Tier 3
NOX standard below 5 g/bhp-hr might
be achievable with a limited impact if
additional engineering resources were
invested to optimize such a system for
general line-haul application. We
encourage commenters supporting
lower NOX levels for Tier 3 locomotives
to address whether some tradeoff in
engineering development (or emissions
averaging) between new Tier 3
locomotives and remanufactured Tier 0
locomotives might be appropriate. For
example, would it be appropriate to set
a Tier 3 NOX standard at 4.5 g/bhp-hr,
but relax the NOX standard for later
model Tier 0 locomotives to 8.0 g/bhphr instead of 7.4 g/bhp-hr?
We are proposing that a manufacturer
may defer meeting the Tier 4 NOX
standard until 2017. However, we
expect that each manufacturer will
undertake a single comprehensive
redesign program for Tier 4, using this
allowed deferral to work through any
implementation and technology proveout issues that might arise with
advanced NOX control technology, but
relying on the same basic locomotive
platform and overall emission control
space allocations for all Tier 4 product
years. For this reason we are proposing
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(b) Switch Locomotives
Our 1998 locomotive rule included
some provisions aimed at addressing
emissions from switch locomotives. We
adopted a set of switcher standards and
a switcher test cycle. This cycle made
use of the same notch-by-notch test data
as the line haul cycle, but reweighted
these notch-specific emission results to
correspond to typical switcher duty. In
addition to controlling emissions from
dedicated switchers, we viewed this
cycle as adding robustness to the linehaul emissions control program. For this
reason, and because aging line-haul
locomotives have often in the past
found utility as switchers, we subjected
all regulated locomotives to the switch
cycle. We also allowed for dedicated
switch locomotives, defined as
locomotives designed or used primarily
for short distance operation and using
an engine with rated power at 2300 hp
(1700 kW) or less, to be optionally
exempted from the line-haul cycle
standards.
There have been a number of changes
in the rail industry since our 1998
rulemaking that are relevant to
switchers. First, locomotives marketed
for line-haul service have continued to
increase in size, to a point where today’s
4000+hp (3000+kW) line-haul
locomotives are too large for practical
use in switching service. Second, there
have been practically no U.S. sales of
newly-built switchers by the primary
locomotive builders, EMD and GE, for
many years. Third, smaller builders
have entered this market, selling new or
refurbished locomotives with one to
three newly-built diesel engines
originally designed for the nonroad
equipment market, but recertified under
Part 92, or sold under the 40 CFR 92.907
provisions that allow limited sales of
locomotives using nonroad-certified
engines. Fourth, although this new
generation of switchers has shown great
promise, their purchase prices on the
order of a million dollars or more,
compared to the relatively low cost of
maintaining old switchers, have limited
sales primarily for use in California and
Texas where state government subsidies
are available.
All of these factors together have
produced a situation in which the
current fleet of old switchers, including
many pre-1973 locomotives not subject
to any emissions standards, is
maintained and kept in service. Because
they have relatively light duty cycles
and generally operate very close to
repair facilities, they can be maintained
almost indefinitely. Though many have
poor fuel economy, this alone is not of
great enough concern to the railroads to
warrant replacing them because even
very busy switchers consume a fraction
of the fuel used by long-distance linehaul locomotives.
At the same time, these older switch
locomotives have come under
increasing public scrutiny. When
operated in railyards located in urban
neighborhoods, they have often become
the focus of complaints from citizens
groups about noise, smoke, and other
emissions, and state and local
governments have begun to place a
higher priority on reducing their
emissions.101
We note that switchers (or any other
locomotives) that have not been
remanufactured to EPA standards are
not considered covered by the full
preemption of state and local emission
standards in section 209(e)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, which applies to
standards relating to the control of
emissions from new locomotive engines.
Similarly, the preemption that does
apply for locomotives that are certified
101 See, for example, letter from Catherine
Witherspoon, Executive Director of the California
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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.
Air Resources Board, to EPA Administrator Stephen
Johnson, September 7, 2006.
that locomotives certified under Tier 4
in 2015 and 2016 without Tier 4 NOX
control systems have this system added
when they undergo their first
remanufacture, and be subject to the
Tier 4 NOX standard thereafter.
We are proposing that, starting in Tier
4, line-haul locomotives will not be
required to meet standards on the
switch cycle. Line-haul locomotives
were originally made subject to switch
cycle standards to help ensure robust
control in use and in recognition of the
fact that many line haul locomotives
have in the past been used for switcher
service later in life. As explained in
section III.C(1)(b), the latter is of less
concern today. Also, we expect that the
aftertreatment technologies used in Tier
4 will provide effective control over a
broad range of operation, thus lessening
the need for a switch cycle to ensure
robust control. We propose that newlybuilt Tier 3 locomotives and Tier 0
through Tier 2 locomotives
remanufactured under this program be
subject to switch cycle standards, set at
levels above the line-haul cycle
standards (Table III–1) in the same
proportion that the original Tier 0
through Tier 2 switch cycle standards
are above their corresponding line-haul
cycle standards. See section III.C(1)(b)
for details.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15971
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15972
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III–2.—PROPOSED EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SWITCH LOCOMOTIVES
[g/bhp-hr]
Switch locomotive standards apply to:
PM
Remanufactured Tier 0 .........................................................................
Remanufactured Tier 1 .........................................................................
Remanufactured Tier 2 .........................................................................
Tier 3 .....................................................................................................
Tier 4 .....................................................................................................
Standards and implementation dates
for large nonroad engines vary by
horsepower and by whether or not the
engine is designed for portable electric
power generation (gensets), as shown in
Table III–3. This is significant for the
switch locomotive program because it
has been the practice for switch
locomotive builders to use a variety of
nonroad engine configurations. For
example, a manufacturer building a
2100 hp switcher using nonroad engines
in 2011 could team three 700 hp engines
designed to the nonroad Tier 4
standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM and 0.30
g/bhp-hr NOX, or two 1050 hp engines
at 0.075/2.6 g/bhp-hr PM/NOX, or a
single 2100 hp engine at 0.075/0.50 or
0.075/2.6 g/bhp-hr PM/NOX, depending
0.26
0.26
0.13
0.10
0.03
NOX
11.8
11.0
8.1
5.0
1.3
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
HC
Date
2.10
1.20
0.60
0.60
0.14
2008 as available, 2010 required.
2008 as available, 2010 required.
2008 as available, 2013 required.
2011.
2015.
given year would hinder optimum
designs and thereby would tend to work
against our goal of encouraging the
turnover of the current fleet of old
switchers. Furthermore, we note that
there is no single large engine category
that consistently has the most stringent
nonroad Tier 4 PM and NOX standards
from year to year. We also note that,
because State subsidies for the purchase
of new switch locomotives have been
clearly tied to their lower emissions,
and also because the use of loweremitting engines can generate valuable
ABT credits, there is likely to be
continuing pressure driving the industry
toward the cleanest nonroad engines
available in whatever new switcher
market does develop.
TABLE III–3.—LARGE NONROAD ENGINE TIER 4 STANDARDS
[g/bhp-hr]
Rated power
PM
™750 hp .......................................................................................................................................
750–1200 hp ................................................................................................................................
>1200 hp ......................................................................................................................................
NOX
0.01
0.01
0.075
0.02
0.075
0.02
a 3.0
(NOX+NMHC)
0.30
2.6
b 0.50
b 0.50
b 0.50
Model year
2011
2014
2011
2015
2011
2015
a 0.30
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
b 2.6
NOX for 50% of sales in 2011–2013, or alternatively 1.5 g NOX for 100% of sales.
for non-genset engines—setting the long-term Tier 4 standard for these engines was deferred in the Nonroad Tier 4 Rule.
There is one exception to this
approach that we consider necessary. In
the Tier 4 nonroad engine rule, we
deferred setting a final Tier 4 NOX
standard for non-genset engines over
750 hp. These are typically used in large
bulldozers and mine haul trucks. This
was done in order to allow additional
time to evaluate the technical issues
involved in adapting NOX control
technology to these applications and
engines (69 FR 38979, June 29, 2004).
We believe it is appropriate to propose
a Tier 4 NOX standard for switch
locomotives in 2015 based on SCR
technology, as we are proposing for linehaul locomotives in 2017. We believe
this to be feasible because the switch
locomotive designer will have a variety
of nonroad engine choices equipped
with SCR available in 2015, such as
multiple <750 hp engines or larger
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
genset engines, an opportunity that is
not available to large nonroad machine
designers due to functional and
packaging constraints. To set a non-SCR
based standard for switch locomotives
indefinitely, or to wait to do so after we
set the final Tier 4 NOX standard for
mobile machine engines above 750 hp,
would create significant uncertainty for
the manufacturers and railroads, and
would be contrary to our intent to
reduce locomotive emissions in
switchyards. We note too that SCR
introduction in the fairly limited fleet of
newly-built switchers likely to exist in
2015 and 2016 provides an opportunity
for railroads to become familiar with
urea handling and SCR operation in
accessible switchyards, before large
scale introduction in the far-ranging
line-haul fleet.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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-
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
occur due to engineer habits of not
shutting down the engine, and the
associated difficulty in determining just
when the engine can be safely shut
down and for how long.
Automatic engine stop/start (AESS)
systems have been developed to start or
stop a locomotive engine based on
parameters such as: ambient
temperature, battery charge, water and
oil temperature, and brake system
pressure. AESS systems have been
proven to reliably and safely reduce
unnecessary idling. Typically they will
shutdown the locomotive after a
specified period of idling (typically 15–
30 minutes) as long as the parameters
are all within their required
specifications. If one of the
aforementioned parameters goes out of
its specified range, the AESS will restart
the locomotive and allow it to idle until
the parameters have returned to their
required limits. Although developed
primarily to save fuel, AESS systems
also reduce idling emissions and noise
by reducing idling time. Any emissions
spike from engine startup has been
found to be minor, and thus idle
emissions are reduced in proportion to
idling time eliminated. It is expected
that overall PM and NOX idling
emission reductions of up to 50 percent
can be achieved through the use of
AESS.
A further reduction in idling
emissions can be achieved through the
use of onboard auxiliary power units
(APUs), either as standalone systems or
in conjunction with an AESS. There are
two main manufacturers of APUs,
EcoTrans which manufacturers the K9
APU, and Kim Hotstart which
manufactures the Diesel Driven Heating
System (DDHS). In contrast to AESS,
which works to reduce unnecessary
idling, the APU goes further by also
reducing the amount of time when
locomotive engine idling is necessary,
especially in cold weather climates.
APUs are small (less than 50 hp) diesel
engines that stop and start themselves as
needed to provide heat to both the
engine coolant and engine oil, power to
charge the batteries and to run necessary
accessories such as those required for
cab comfort. This allows the much
larger locomotive engine to be shut
down while the locomotive remains in
a state of readiness thereby reducing
fuel consumption without the risk of the
engine being damaged in cold weather.
If an APU does not have the capability
of an AESS built in, it may need to be
installed in conjunction with one in
order to receive the full complement of
idle reductions that the combination of
technologies can provide. The APUs are
nonroad engines compliant with EPA or
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15973
State of California nonroad engine
standards, and emit at much lower
levels than an idling locomotive.
Installation of an APU today costs
approximately $25,000 to $35,000;
while an AESS can cost anywhere from
$7,500 to $15,000.102 The costs vary
depending on the model and
configuration of the locomotive on
which the equipment is being installed,
and would likely be substantially lower
if incorporated into the design of a
newly-built locomotive. The amount of
idle reduction each system can provide
is also dependent on a number of
variables, such as what the function of
the locomotive is (e.g. a switcher or a
line-haul), where it operates (i.e.
geographical area), and what its
operating characteristics are (e.g.
number of hours per day it operates).
The duty cycles in 40 CFR 92.132, based
on real world data available at the time
they were adopted in 1998, indicate a
line haul locomotive idles nearly 40%
of its operating time, and a switcher
locomotive idles nearly 60% of its
operating time. This idling time can be
further divided into low idle (when
there is no load on the engine) and
normal idle (when there is a load on the
engine). Only low idle can be reduced
by an AESS, while an APU can reduce
normal idle (or idle in a higher notch
such as notch 3 which can burn up to
11 gallons per hour). Another difference
between the two types of idle is the fuel
consumption rate which is less at low
idle than normal idle (2.4–3.6 gallons
per hour vs. 2.9–5.4 gallons per hour,
based on Tier 2 certification data).
Although there is a gradual trend in
the railroad industry toward wider use
of these types of idle control devices, we
believe it is important for ensuring air
quality benefits to propose that idle
controls be required as part of a certified
emission control system. We are
proposing that at least an AESS system
be required on all new Tier 3 and Tier
4 locomotives, and also installed on all
existing locomotives that are subject to
the new remanufactured engine
standards, at the point of first
remanufacture under the new standards,
unless the locomotive is already
equipped with idle controls.
Specifically, we are requiring that
locomotives equipped with an AESS
device under this program must shut
down the locomotive engine after no
more than 30 continuous minutes of
idling, and be able to stop and start the
engine at least six times per day without
102 Jessica Montanez and Matthew Mahler,
˜
‘‘Reducing Idling Locomotives Emissions’’, NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
DAQ https://daq.state.nc.us/planning/
locoindex.shtml.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15974
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
causing engine damage or other serious
problems. The system must prevent the
locomotive engine from being restarted
to resume extended idling unless one of
the following conditions necessitates
such idling: to prevent engine damage
such as damage caused by coolant
freezing, to maintain air brake pressure,
to perform necessary maintenance, or to
otherwise comply with applicable
government regulations. EPA approval
of alternative criteria could be requested
provided comparable idle emissions
reduction is achieved.
As described in the RIA, it is widely
accepted that for most locomotives, the
fuel savings that result in the first
several years after installation of an
AESS system will more than offset the
cost of adding the system to the
locomotive. Given these short payback
times for adding idle reduction
technologies to a typical locomotive,
normal market forces have led the major
railroads to retrofit many of their
locomotives with such controls.
However, as is common with pollution,
market forces generally do not account
for the external social costs of the idling
emissions. This proposal addresses
those locomotives for which the
railroads determine that the fuel savings
are insufficient to justify the cost of the
retrofit. We believe that applying AESS
to these locomotives is appropriate
when one also considers the very
significant emissions reductions that
would result, as well as the longer term
fuel savings. We request comment on
the need for this requirement. We also
request comment regarding the reasons
why a railroad might choose not to
apply AESS absent this provision. Are
there costs for AESS and retrofits that
are higher than our analysis would
suggest? Are there other reasons that
would lead a railroad to not adopt AESS
universally?
Even though we are proposing to
require only AESS systems, we
encourage the additional use of APUs by
providing in our proposed test
regulations a way for the manufacturer
to appropriately account for the
emission benefits of greater idle
reduction. See Section IV.B(8) for
further discussion. We are not
proposing that APUs must be installed
on every locomotive because it is not
clear how much additional benefit they
would provide outside of regions and
times of the year where low
temperatures or other factors that
warrant the use of an APU exist, and
they do involve some inherent design
and operational complexities that could
not be justified without commensurate
benefits. We are however asking for
comment on requiring that some subset
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consumption rate), we would solicit
their views on how to calculate the
emissions reduction and on how the inuse operation of the consist could be
logged and reported. For example, it
may be appropriate to allow a
manufacturer to use alternative notch
weightings tailored to operation in an
emissions-optimized consist in
demonstrating compliance with the
emissions standards, thus providing
added flexibility in designing such
locomotives to meet the standards.
(2) Marine Standards
We are also proposing new emissions
standards for newly-built marine diesel
engines with displacements under 30
liters per cylinder, including those used
in commercial, recreational, and
auxiliary power applications. As for
locomotives, our ANPRM described a
one-step marine diesel program that
would bring about the introduction of
high-efficiency exhaust aftertreatment in
this sector. Just as for locomotives, our
analyses of the technical issues related
to the application of aftertreatment
technologies to marine engines,
informed by our many discussions with
stakeholders, have resulted in a
proposal for new standards in multiple
steps, focused especially on the engines
with the greatest potential for large PM
and NOX emission reductions. Our
technical analyses are summarized in
section III.D and are detailed in the draft
RIA.
In contrast to the locomotive sector,
the marine diesel sector covered by this
rule is quite diverse. Commercial
propulsion applications range from
small fishing boats to Great Lakes
freighters. Recreational propulsion
applications range from sailboats to
super-yachts. Similarly, auxiliary power
applications range from small gensets,
to generators used on barges, to large
power-generating units used on oceangoing vessels. Many of the propulsion
engines are used to propel high-speed
planing boats, both commercial and
recreational, where low weight and high
power density are critically important.
Some engines are situated in crowded
engine compartments accessed through
a hatch in the deck, while others occupy
relatively spacious engine rooms. All of
them share a high premium on
reliability, considering the potentially
serious ramifications of engine failure
while underway.
The resulting diversity in engine
design characteristics is
correspondingly large. Sizes range from
a few horsepower to thousands of
horsepower. Historically, we have
categorized marine engines for
standards-setting purposes based on
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15975
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cylinder displacements: C1 engines of
less than 5 liters/cylinder, C2 from 5 to
30 liters/cylinder, and Category 3 (C3) at
greater than 30 liters/cylinder. (These
C3 engines typically power oceancrossing ships and burn residual fuel;
we are not including such engines in
this proposal). Our past standard-setting
efforts have found it helpful to make
further distinctions as well, considering
small (less than 37 kW (50 hp)) engines
and C1 recreational engines as separate
categories.
Recreational engines typically power
recreational vessels designed primarily
for speed, and this imposes certain
constraints on the type of engine they
can use. For a marine vessel to reach
high speeds, it is necessary to reduce
the surface contact between the vessel
and the water, and consequently these
vessels typically operate in a planing
mode. Planing imposes important
design requirements, calling for low
vessel weight and short periods of very
high power— and thus prompting a
need for high power density engines.
The tradeoff is less durability, and
recreational engines are correspondingly
warranted for fewer hours of operation
than commercial marine engines. These
special characteristics are represented in
EPA duty-cycle and useful life
provisions for recreational marine
engines.
Unlike the locomotive sector, the vast
majority of marine diesel engines are
derivatives of land-based nonroad diesel
engines. Marine diesel engine sales are
significantly lower (by 10 or even 100
fold) than the sales of the land-based
nonroad engines from which they are
derived. For this reason, changes to
marine engine technology typically
follow the changes made to the parent
nonroad engine. For example, it may be
economically infeasible to develop and
introduce a new fuel system for a
marine diesel engine with sales of 100
units annually, while being desirable to
do so for a land-based nonroad diesel
engine with sales of 10,000 or more
units annually. Further, having
developed a new technology for landbased diesel engines, it is often cheaper
to simply apply the new technology to
the marine diesel engine rather than
continuing to carry a second set of
engine parts within a manufacturing
system for a marginal number of
additional sales. Recognizing this
reality, our proposed marine standards
are phased in to follow the introduction
of similar engine technology standards
from our Nonroad Tier 4 emissions
program. In most cases, the
corresponding marine diesel standards
will follow the Nonroad Tier 4
standards by one to two years.
We are proposing to retain the percylinder displacement approach to
establishing cutpoints for standards, but
are revising and refining it in several
places to ensure that the appropriate
standards apply to every group of
engines in this very diverse sector, and
to provide for an orderly phase-in of the
program to spread out the redesign
workload burden:
(1) We are proposing to move the C1/
C2 cutpoint from 5 liters/cylinder to 7
liters/cylinder, because the latter is a
more accurate cutpoint between today’s
high- and medium-speed diesels (in
terms of revolutions per minute (rpm)),
with their correspondingly different
emissions characteristics.
(2) We also propose to revise the percylinder displacement cutpoints within
Category 1 to better refine the
application of standards.
(3) An additional differentiation is
proposed between high power density
engines typically used in planing
vessels and standard power density
engines, with a cutpoint between them
set at 35 kW/liter (47 hp/liter). In
addition to recreational vessels, the high
power-density engines are used in some
commercial vessels, including certain
kinds of crew boats, research vessels,
and fishing vessels. Unlike most
commercial vessels, these vessels are
built for higher speed, which allows
them to reach research fields, oil
platforms, or fishing beds more quickly.
This proposal addresses the technical
challenges related to reducing emissions
from engines with high power density.
(4) In the past, we did not formally
include marine diesels under 37 kW (50
hp) in Category 1, but regulated them
separately as part of the nonroad engine
program, referring to them elsewhere as
‘‘small marine engines’’. They are
typically marinized land-based nonroad
diesel engines. Because we are now
proposing to include these engines in
the current marine diesel rulemaking,
this distinction is no longer needed and
so we are including these engines in
Category 1 for Tier 3 and Tier 4
standards.
(5) Finally, we would further group
engines by total rated power, especially
in regard to setting appropriate longterm aftertreatment-based standards.
Note that we are retaining the
differentiation between recreational and
non-recreational marine engines within
Category 1 because there are differences
in the proposed standards for them.
Although this carefully targeted
approach to standards-setting results in
a somewhat complicated array of
emissions standards, we believe it is
justified because it maximizes overall
emission reductions by ensuring the
most stringent standards feasible for a
given group of marine engines, and it
also helps engine and vessel designers
to implement the program in the most
cost effective manner. The proposed
standards and implementation
schedules are shown on Tables III–4–7.
Briefly summarized, the proposed
marine diesel standards include
stringent engine-based Tier 3 standards,
phasing in over 2009–2014. In addition,
the proposed standards include
aftertreatment-based Tier 4 standards for
engines at or above 600 kW (800 hp),
phasing in over 2014–2017, except that
Tier 4 would not apply to recreational
engines under 2000 kW (2670 hp). For
engines of power ratings not included in
the Tier 3 and Tier 4 tables, the previous
tier of standards (Tier 2 or Tier 3,
respectively) continues to apply.
TABLE III–4.—PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C1 COMMERCIAL STANDARD POWER DENSITY
Rated kW
L/cylinder
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
<19 kW .....................................................................................................................
19–<75 kW ...............................................................................................................
75–3700 kW .............................................................................................................
a <75
PM
g/bhp-hr
<0.9
a <0.9
<0.9
0.9–<1.2
1.2–<2.5
2.5–<3.5
3.5–<7.0
0.30
0.22
b 0.22
0.10
0.09
c 0.08
c 0.08
c 0.08
kW engines at or above 0.9 L/cylinder are subject to the corresponding 75–3700 kW standards.
0.15 PM/4.3 NOX in 2014.
b Option:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
NOX+HC
g/bhp-hr
5.6
5.6
b 3.5
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.3
Model year
2009
2009
2014
2012
2013
2014
2013
2012
15976
c This
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
standard level drops to 0.07 in 2018 for <600 kW engines.
TABLE III–5.—PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C1 RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL HIGH POWER
DENSITY
Rated kW
<19 kW .....................................................................................................................
19–<75 kW ...............................................................................................................
75—3700 kW ...........................................................................................................
a <75
PM
g/bhp-hr
L/cylinder
<0.9
NOX+HC
g/bhp-hr
0.30
0.22
b 0.22
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
a <0.9
<0.9
0.9–<1.2
1.2–<2.5
2.5–<3.5
3.5–<7.0
5.6
5.6
b 3.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
Model year
2009
2009
2014
2012
2013
2014
2013
2012
kW engines at or above 0.9 L/cylinder are subject to the corresponding 75–3700 kW standards.
0.15 PM/4.3 NOX+HC in 2014.
b Option:
TABLE III–6.—PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C2
Rated kW
L/cylinder
=<3700 kW ..............................................................................................................
a For
PM g/bhp-hr
7–<15
15–<20
20–<25
25–<30
NOX+HC
g/bhp-hr
0.10
4.6
a 0.20
a 6.5
0.20
0.20
7.3
8.2
Model year
2013
2014
2014
2014
engines at or below 3300 kW in this group, the PM/NOX+HC Tier 3 standards are 0.25/5.2.
TABLE III–7.—PROPOSED TIER 4 STANDARDS FOR MARINE DIESEL C1 AND C2
Rated kW
PM g/bhp-hr
>3700 kW .................................................................................................................
HC g/bhp-hr
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
a 0.09
1400–3700 kW .........................................................................................................
600–<1400 kW .........................................................................................................
NOX g/bhphr
0.04
0.03
0.03
Model year
2014
b 2016
c 2016
b 2017
a This
standard is 0.19 for engines with 15–30 liter/cylinder displacement.
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 NO in 2017.
X
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
b Optional
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Table III–4. One option focuses on lower
PM and the other on lower NOX, though
both require substantial reductions in
both PM and NOX and would take effect
in 2014.
With important exceptions, we
propose that marine diesel engines at or
above 75 kW (100 hp) be subject to new
emissions standards in two steps, Tier 3
and Tier 4. The proposed Tier 3
standards are based on the engine-out
emission reduction potential of the
nonroad Tier 4 diesel engines which
will be introduced beginning in 2011.
Tier 3 standards for C1 engines would
generally take effect in 2012, though for
some engines, they would start in 2013
or 2014. We are not basing our proposed
marine Tier 3 emission standards on the
existing nonroad Tier 3 emission
standards for two reasons. First, the
nonroad Tier 3 engines will be replaced
beginning in 2011 with nonroad Tier 4
engines, and given the derivative nature
of marine diesel manufacturing, we
believe it is more appropriate to use
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
those Tier 4 engine capabilities as the
basis for the proposed marine standards.
Second, the advanced fuel and
combustion systems that we expect
these Tier 4 nonroad engines to apply
will allow approximately a 50 percent
reduction in PM when compared to the
reduction potential of the nonroad Tier
3 engines. The proposed Tier 3
standards levels would vary slightly,
from 0.08 to 0.11 g/bhp-hr (0.11 to 0.15
g/kW-hr) for PM and from 4.0 to 4.3 g/
bhp-hr (5.4 to 5.8 g/kW-hr) for NOX+HC.
Tier 3 standards for C2 engines would
take effect in 2013 or 2014, depending
on engine displacement, and standards
levels would also vary, from 0.10 to 0.25
g/bhp-hr (0.14 to 0.34 g/kW-hr) for PM
and 4.6 to 8.2 g/bhp-hr (6.2 to 11.0 g/
kW-hr) for NOX+HC. For the largest C2
engines, those above 3700 kW (4900
hp), the NOX+HC standard would
remain at the Tier 2 levels until Tier 4
begins for these engines in 2014.
We are proposing that high-efficiency
aftertreatment-based Tier 4 standards be
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
applied to all commercial and auxiliary
C1 and C2 engines over 600 kW (800
hp). These standards would phase in
over 2014–2017. Marine diesels over
600 kW, though fewer in number, are
the workhorses of the inland waterway
and intercoastal marine industry,
running at high load factors, for many
hours a day, over decades of heavy use.
As a result they also account for the
very large majority of marine diesel
engine emissions. However, for engines
at or below 600 kW, our technical
analysis indicates that applying
aftertreatment to them appears at this
time not to be feasible. There are many
reasons for this preliminary conclusion,
varying in relative importance with
engine size and application, but
generally including insufficient space in
below-deck engine compartments,
catalyst packaging limitations for waterinjected exhaust systems, poor catalyst
performance in water-jacketed exhaust
systems, and weight constraints in
planing hull vessels.
Although with time and investment
these issues may be resolvable for some
under 600 kW (800 hp) applications, we
are not, at this time, proposing Tier 4
standards for these engines. We may do
so at some point in the future, such as
after the successful prove-out of
aftertreatment in the larger marine
engines and in nonroad diesel engines
have established a clearer technology
path for extension to these engines. The
approach taken in this proposal
concentrates Tier 4 design and
development efforts into the engine and
vessel applications where they can do
the most good.
We are confident that there is a subset
of recreational vessels that are large
enough to accommodate the added size
of engines equipped with aftertreatment
and that have appropriate maintenance
procedures to ensure that the
aftertreatment systems are appropriately
maintained, for example, because they
have a professional crew as opposed to
being maintained by the owner. Based
on a review of publicly available sales
literature, we believe that at least the
subset of recreational vessels with
engines at rated power above 2000 kW
(2760 hp) have the space and design
layout conducive to aftertreatment and
professional crews such that
aftertreatment-based standards are
feasible. Therefore, we are proposing to
apply the Tier 4 standards to
recreational marine diesel engines at
rated power above 2000 kW, but we
request comment on whether this is the
appropriate threshold, along with any
available information supporting the
commenter’s view. We also request
comment on the issue of ULSD
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
availability for these vessels in places
that they may visit outside the United
States. The rapid pace at which the
industrial nations are shifting to ULSD
has surpassed expectations. By no
means does this ensure its availability
in every port that might be frequented
by large U.S. yachts, but it does give
confidence that ULSD will be a global
product, and certainly not confined to
the coastal U.S. when Tier 4 yachts
begin to appear in 2016. These large
yachts are operated by professional
crews who plan their itineraries ahead
of time and are unlikely to put in for
fuel without checking out the facility
ahead of time, though quite possibly
this may require somewhat more
diligence in the early years of the
program while the ULSD-needing fleet
is ramping up in size. We also expect
that, from the marinas’ perspective,
those frequented by these affluent
visitors typically covet this business
today, and will likely be reticent to
leave ULSD off the list of offerings and
amenities aimed at attracting them.
We are setting the Tier 4 standards for
most engines above 600 kW (800 hp) at
0.03 g/bhp-hr (0.04 g/kW-hr) for PM,
based on the use of PM filters, and 1.3
g/bhp-hr (1.8 g/kW-hr) for NOX based on
the use of urea SCR systems. The largest
marine diesel engines, those above 3700
kW (4900 hp), would be subject to this
SCR-based NOX standard in 2014, along
with a new engine-based PM standard.
The Tier 4 PM standard for these
engines would then start in 2016, with
the addition of a filter-based 0.04 g/bhphr (0.06 g/kW-hr) standard. See section
III.C(3) for a discussion of the Tier 4 HC
standard.
Note that the implementation
schedule in the above marine standards
tables is expressed in terms of model
years, consistent with past practice and
the format of our regulations. However,
in two cases we believe it is appropriate
to provide a manufacturer the option to
delay compliance somewhat, as long as
the standards are implemented within
the indicated model year. Specifically,
we are proposing to allow a
manufacturer to delay Tier 4
compliance within the 2017 model year
for 600–1000 kW (800–1300 hp) engines
by up to 9 months (but no later than
October 1, 2017) and, for Tier 4 PM,
within the 2016 model year for over
3700 kW (4900 hp) engines by up to 12
months (but no later than December 31,
2016). We consider this option to delay
implementation appropriate in order to
give some flexibility in spreading the
implementation workload and ensure a
smooth transition to the long-term Tier
4 program.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15977
The proposed Tier 4 standards for
locomotives and C2 diesel marine
engines of comparable size are at the
same numerical levels but differ
somewhat in implementation schedule,
with locomotive Tier 4 starting in 2015
for PM and 2017 for NOX, and diesel
marine Tier 4 for both PM and NOX
starting in 2016 (for engines in the
1400–3700 kW (1900–4900 hp) range).
We consider these implementation
schedules to be close enough to warrant
our providing an option to meet either
schedule for these marine engines,
aimed at facilitating the development of
engines for both markets, a common
practice today. Because the locomotive
Tier 4 phase-in is offset by only one year
on either side of the marine Tier 4 2016
date, we do not expect this option to
introduce major competitiveness issues
between manufacturers who will be
designing engines for both markets and
those who will be designing for only the
marine market. Furthermore, we see no
reason to make this option available
only those who make locomotive
products, and are therefore proposing its
availability to any manufacturer.
Comment is requested on the need for
the option, and on whether it should be
limited to a particular subset of engines.
We note too that the Tier 3 marine
standards for locomotive-like marine
engines (that is, in the 7–15 liters/
cylinder group) although having the
same implementation date and
numerical PM standard level as
locomotive Tier 3, includes a 4.6 g/bhphr (6.1 g/kW-hr) NOX+HC standard,
compared to the 5.5 g/bhp-hr (7.3 g/kWhr) NOX standard for locomotive Tier 3.
We request comment on whether some
provision is needed to avoid the need
for designing an engine primarily used
in locomotives to meet the marine
standard in order to have both ready for
Tier 3, on whether sufficient ABT
credits are likely to be available to deal
with this, and on how to ensure we do
not lose environmental benefits or
inadvertently create competitiveness
problems.
Some marine engine families include
engines of the same basic design and
emissions performance but achieving
widely varying power ratings in engine
models marketed through varying the
number of cylinders, for example 8 to
20. These families can and do straddle
power cutpoints, most notably at the
3700 kW (4900 hp) cutpoint, above
which NOX aftertreatment is expected to
be needed in 2014 under our proposed
standards, and at the 600 kW (800 hp)
cutpoint for application of the proposed
Tier 4 standards. We understand that
manufacturers have concerns about
additional design and certification work
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15978
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
needed for an engine family falling into
two categories, especially with regard to
the 600 and 3700 kW cutpoints which
involve very different standards or start
dates on either side of the cutpoint. We
request comment on whether this
concern is a serious one for the
manufacturers, on suggestions for how
to address it fairly without a loss of
environmental benefit, and on whether
our not addressing it would cause
undesirable shifts in ratings offered in
the market in order to stay on one side
or the other of the cutpoints. One
particular idea on which we request
comment is allowing engines above
3700 kW an option to meet the Tier 4
PM requirement in 2014 and the Tier 4
NOX requirement December 31, 2016,
similar to the less than 3700 kW option
discussed above.
We are concerned that applying the
Tier 4 standards to engines above 600
kW (800 hp) may create an incentive for
vessel builders who would normally use
engines greater than 600 kW to instead
use a larger number of smaller engines
in a vessel to get the equivalent power
output. Generally, the choice of engines
for a vessel is directly a function of the
work that vessel is intended to do.
There may be cases, however, in which
a vessel designer that might have used,
for example, two 630 kW engines,
chooses instead to use three 420 kW
engines to avoid the Tier 4 standards.
We have concerns about the
environmental impacts of such a result.
There also may be competitiveness
concerns. Therefore, we are seeking
comment on whether substitution of
several smaller engines for one or two
larger engines is likely to occur as a
result of differential standards, and on
what can be done to avoid it. For
example, the Tier 4 standards could be
applied to engines in multi-engine
vessels with a total power above a
certain threshold, such as 1100 kW
(1500 hp). We recognize that this would
result in a need to equip engines
somewhat below 600 kW with
aftertreatment devices, but we believe
the feasibility concerns such as space
constraints discussed above for engines
below this cutpoint are diminished in
multi-engine vessel designs.
Alternatively, we could require vessel
manufacturers seeking to use more than
two engines to make a demonstration to
us that they are not attempting to
circumvent the aftertreatment-based
requirements, for example by showing
that the vessel design they are using
traditionally incorporates three or more
engines or that there is a specific design
requirement that leads to the use of
several smaller engines. A third option
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
would be to base the Tier 4 standards
on the size (or other characteristics) of
the vessel, for vessels that have two or
more propulsion engines. Commenters
on this issue should address the
feasibility and potential market impacts
of these potential solutions and are
asked to offer their own suggestions as
well.
(3) Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbon, and
Smoke Standards
We are not proposing new standards
for CO. Emissions of CO are typically
relatively low in diesel engines today
compared to non-diesel pollution
sources. Furthermore, among diesel
application sectors, locomotives and
marine diesel engines are already
subject to relatively stringent CO
standards in Tier 2—essentially 1.5 and
3.7 g/bhp-hr, respectively, compared to
the current heavy-duty highway diesel
engine CO standard of 15.5 g/bhp-hr.
Therefore, under our proposal, the Tier
3 and Tier 4 CO standards for all
locomotives and marine diesel engines
would remain at current Tier 2 levels
and remanufactured Tier 0, 1 and 2
locomotives would likewise continue to
be subject to the existing CO standards
for each of these tiers. Although we are
not setting more stringent standards for
CO in Tier 4, we note that aftertreatment
devices using precious metal catalysts
that we project will be employed to
meet Tier 4 PM, NOX and HC standards
would provide meaningful reductions in
CO emissions as well.
As discussed in section II, HC
emissions, often characterized as VOCs,
are precursors to ozone formation, and
include compounds that EPA considers
to be air toxics. As for CO, emissions of
HC are typically relatively low in diesel
engines today compared to non-diesel
sources. However, in contrast to CO
standards, the line-haul locomotive Tier
2 HC standard of 0.30 g/bhp-hr, though
comparable to emissions from other
diesel applications in Tier 2 and Tier 3,
is more than twice that of the long-term
0.14 g/bhp-hr standard set for both the
heavy-duty highway 2007 and nonroad
Tier 4 programs. For marine diesel
engines the Tier 2 HC standard is
expressed as part of a combined
NOX+HC standard varying by engine
size between 5.4 and 8.2 g/bhp-hr,
which clearly allows for high HC levels.
Our proposed more stringent Tier 3
NOX+HC standards for marine diesel
engines would likely provide some
reduction in HC emissions, but we
expect that the catalyzed exhaust
aftertreatment devices used to meet the
proposed Tier 4 locomotive and marine
NOX and PM standards would
concurrently provide very sizeable
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reductions in HC emissions. Therefore,
in accordance with the Clean Air Act
section 213 provisions outlined in
section I.B(3) of this preamble, we are
proposing that the 0.14 g/hp-hr HC
standard apply for locomotives and
marine diesel engines in Tier 4 as well.
We are proposing that the existing
form of the HC standards be retained
through Tier 3. That is, locomotive and
marine HC standards would remain in
the form of total hydrocarbons (THC),
except for gaseous- and alcohol-fueled
engines (See 40 CFR § 92.8 and § 94.8).
Consistent with this, the Tier 3 marine
NOX+HC standards are proposed to be
based on THC, except that Tier 3
standards for less than 75 kW (100 hp)
engines would be based on NMHC,
consistent with their basis in the
nonroad engine program. However, we
propose that the Tier 4 HC standards be
expressed as NMHC standards,
consistent with aftertreatment-based
standards adopted for highway and
nonroad diesel engines.
As in the case of other diesel mobile
sources, we believe that existing smoke
standards are of diminishing usefulness
as PM levels drop to very low levels, as
engines with PM at these levels emit
very little or no visible smoke. We are
therefore proposing to drop the smoke
standards for locomotives and marine
engines for any engines certified to a PM
family emission limit (FEL) or standard
of 0.05 g/bhp-hr (0.07 g/kW-hr) or
lower. This allows engines certified to
Tier 4 PM or to an FEL slightly above
Tier 4 to avoid unnecessary testing for
smoke.
D. Are the Proposed Standards
Feasible?
In this section we describe the
feasibility of the various emissions
control technologies we project would
be used to meet the standards proposed
today. Because of the range of engines
and applications we cover in this
proposal, and because of the technology
that will be available to them for
emissions control, our proposed
standards span a range of emissions
levels. We have identified a number of
different emissions control technologies
we would expect to be used to meet the
proposed standards. These technologies
range from incremental improvements
to existing engine components for the
proposed remanufacturing program to
highly advanced catalytic exhaust
treatment systems similar to those
expected to be used to control emissions
from heavy-duty diesel trucks and
nonroad equipment.
In this section we first describe the
feasibility of emissions control
technologies we project would be used
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
to meet the standards we are proposing
for existing engines that are
remanufactured as new (i.e., Tier 0, Tier
1, Tier 2). We also describe how these
same technologies would be applied to
meet our proposed interim standards for
new engines (i.e., Tier 3). We conclude
this section with a discussion of
catalytic exhaust treatment technologies
projected to be used to meet our
proposed Tier 4 standards. A more
detailed analysis of these technologies
and the issues related to their
application to locomotive and marine
diesel engines can be found in the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
(1) Emissions Control Technologies for
Remanufactured Engine Standards and
for New Tier 3 Engine Standards
In the locomotive sector, emissions
standards already exist for engines that
are remanufactured as new. Some of
these engines were originally
unregulated (i.e. Tier 0), and others
were originally built to earlier emissions
standards (Tier 1 and Tier 2). We are
proposing more stringent standards for
these engines that apply whenever the
locomotives are remanufactured as new.
Our proposed remanufactured standards
apply to locomotive engines that were
originally built as early as 1973.
We project that incremental
improvements to existing engine
components would be feasible to meet
our proposed locomotive
remanufactured engine standards. In
many cases, similar improvements to
these have already been implemented
on newly built locomotives to meet our
current new locomotive standards. To
meet the lower NOX standard proposed
for the Tier 0 locomotive
remanufacturing program, we expect
that improvements in fuel system
design, engine calibration and
optimization of existing after-cooling
systems may be used to reduce NOX
from the current 9.5 g/bhp-hr Tier 0
standard to 7.4 g/bhp-hr. These are the
same technologies used to meet the
current Tier 1 NOX emission standard of
7.4 g/bhp-hr. In essence, locomotive
manufacturers will duplicate current
Tier 1 locomotive NOX emission
solutions and adapt those same
solutions to the portion of the existing
Tier 0 fleet that can accommodate them.
For older Tier 0 locomotives
manufactured without separate-circuit
cooling systems for intake air charge air
cooling, reaching the Tier 1 NOX level
will not be possible. For these engines
8.0 g/hp-hr NOX emissions represents
the lowest achievable level.
To meet all of our proposed PM
standards for the remanufacturing
program and for the new locomotive
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Tier 3 interim standard, we expect that
lubricating oil consumption controls
will be implemented, along with the
ultra low sulfur diesel fuel requirement
for locomotive engines (which was
previously finalized in our nonroad
clean diesel rulemaking). Because of the
significant fraction of lubricating oil
present in PM from today’s locomotives,
we believe that existing low-oilconsumption piston ring-pack designs,
when used in conjunction with
improvements to closed crankcase
ventilation systems, will provide
significant, near-term PM reductions.
These technologies can be applied to all
locomotive engines, including those
built as far back as 1973. And based
upon our on-highway and nonroad
clean diesel experience, we also believe
that the use of ultra low sulfur diesel
fuel in the locomotive sector will assist
in meeting the Tier 2 remanufacturing
and Tier 3 PM standards. We believe
that the combination of reduced sulfate
PM and improvement of oil and
crankcase emission control to near Tier
3 nonroad or 2007 heavy-duty onhighway levels will provide an
approximately 50% reduction in PM
emissions.
We believe that some fraction of the
remanufacturing systems can be
developed and certified as early as 2008,
so we are proposing the required usage
of Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission
control systems as soon as they are
available starting in 2008. However, we
estimate that it will take approximately
3 years to complete the development
and certification process for all of the
Tier 0 and Tier 1 emission control
systems, so we have proposed full
implementation of the Tier 0 and Tier
1 remanufactured engine standards in
2010. We base this lead time on the
types of technology that we expect to be
implemented, and on the amount of
lead time locomotive manufacturers
needed to certify similar systems for our
current remanufacturing program. The
new engine changes necessary to meet
the Tier 3 and remanufactured Tier 2
PM emission standards will require
additional engine changes leading us to
propose an implementation date for
those engines of 2012 for Tier 3 engines
and 2013 for remanufactured Tier 2
engines. These changes include further
improvements to ring pack designs—
especially for two-stroke engines, and
the implementation of high efficiency
crankcase ventilation systems. These
technologies are described and
illustrated in detail in our draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
In the marine sector, emissions
standards do not currently exist for
engines that are remanufactured as new.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15979
In today’s proposal, we are requesting
comment on a marine diesel engine
remanufacturing program that would
apply to some of these marine engines
whenever they are remanufactured as
new (see section VII.A(2)). Because we
are requesting comment on a marine
engine remanufacturing program that
essentially parallels our locomotive
remanufacturing program, we expect
that the same emissions control
technologies described above would be
implemented for remanufactured
marine diesel engines just as for
remanufactured locomotive engines.
We are proposing more stringent
emissions standards for all newly built
marine diesel engines that have a
displacement of less than thirty liters
per cylinder. For marine diesel engines
that are either used in recreational
vessels or are rated to produce less than
600 kW of power, we are proposing
emissions standards that likely would
not require the use of catalytic exhaust
treatment technology. We are also
proposing similar standards, as interim
standards, for marine diesel engines that
are used in commercial vessels and are
rated to produce 600 kW of power or
more (except if greater than 3700 kW).
Collectively, we refer to these standards
as our Tier 3 marine diesel engine
standards.
To meet our proposed Tier 3 marine
diesel engine standards, we believe that
engine manufacturers will utilize
incremental improvements to existing
engine components. To meet the lower
NOX standards we expect that
improvements in fuel system design and
engine calibration will be implemented.
For Category 1 engines from 75 kW
through 560 kW, these technologies
would be similar to designs and
calibrations that likely will be used to
meet our nonroad Tier 4 standards for
engines. For Category 1 engines below
75 kW and greater than 560kW, and for
Category 2 engines that have cylinder
displacements less than 15 L/cylinder,
these technologies are similar to designs
that will be used to meet our nonroad
Tier 3 standards, and our proposed
locomotive Tier 3 standards.
In almost all instances, marine diesel
engines are derivative of land based
nonroad engines or locomotive engines.
In order to meet our nonroad Tier 4
emission levels (phased in from 2011–
2015), nonroad engines will see
significant base engine improvements
designed to reduce engine-out
emissions. Refer to our nonroad Tier 4
rulemaking for details on the designs
and calibrations we expect to be used to
meet the Tier 3 standards we are
proposing for the lower horsepower
marine engines. For example, we expect
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15980
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
marine engines to utilize high-pressure,
common-rail fuel injection systems or
improvements in unit injector design.
When such fuel system improvements
are used in conjunction with engine
mapping and calibration optimization,
the Tier 3 marine diesel engine
standards can be met. Since this
technology and these components
already have been implemented on onhighway, nonroad, and some locomotive
engines, they can be applied to marine
engines beginning as early as 2009.
Because some marine engines are not
as similar to on-highway, nonroad or
locomotive engines as others, we believe
that full implementation of these
technologies for marine engines cannot
be accomplished until 2012. We expect
that the PM emissions control
technologies that will be used to meet
our proposed Tier 3 marine diesel
engine standards will be similar to the
technology used to meet our nonroad
Tier 3 PM standards and our proposed
locomotive Tier 3 PM standards. That is,
we believe that a combination of fuel
injection improvements, plus the use of
existing low-oil-consumption piston
ring-pack designs and improved closed
crankcase ventilation systems will
provide significant PM reductions. And
based upon our on-highway and nonroad clean diesel experience, we also
believe that the use of ultra low sulfur
diesel fuel in the marine sector will
assist in meeting the Tier 3 PM
standards.
Because all of the aforementioned
technologies to reduce NOX and PM
emissions can be developed for
production, certified, and introduced
into the marine engine sector without
extended lead-time, we believe that
these technologies can be implemented
for some engines as early as 2009, and
for all engines by 2014. We believe that
this later date is needed only for those
marine engines that are not similar to
other on-highway, nonroad, or
locomotive engines.
(2) Catalytic Exhaust Treatment
Technologies for New Engines
For marine diesel engines in
commercial service that are greater than
600 kW, for all marine engines greater
than 2000 kW, and for all locomotives,
we are proposing stringent Tier 4
standards based on the use of advanced
catalytic exhaust treatment systems to
control both PM and NOX emissions.
There are four main issues to address
when analyzing the application of this
technology to these new sources: the
efficacy of the fundamental catalyst
technology in terms of the percent
reduction in emissions given certain
engine conditions such as exhaust
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
temperature; its applicability in terms of
packaging; its long-term durability; and
whether or not the technology
significantly impacts an industry’s
supply chain infrastructure—especially
with respect to supplying urea reductant
for SCR to locomotives and vessels. We
have carefully examined these points,
and based upon our analysis (detailed in
our draft Regulatory Impact Analysis),
we believe that we have identified
robust PM and NOX catalytic exhaust
treatment systems that are applicable to
locomotives and marine engines that
also pose a manageable impact on the
rail and marine industries’
infrastructure.
(a) Catalytic PM Emissions Control
Technology
The most effective exhaust
aftertreatment used for diesel PM
emissions control is the diesel
particulate filter (DPF). More than a
million light diesel vehicles that are
OEM-equipped with DPF systems have
been sold in Europe, and over 200,000
DPF retrofits to diesel engines have been
conducted worldwide.103 Broad
application of catalyzed diesel
particulate filter (CDPF) systems with
greater than 90 percent PM control is
beginning with the introduction of 2007
model year heavy-duty diesel trucks in
the United States. These systems use a
combination of both passive and active
soot regeneration. CDPF systems
utilizing metal substrates are a further
development that trades off a degree of
elemental carbon soot control for
reduced backpressure, improvements in
the ability of the trap to clear oil ash,
greater design freedom regarding filter
size/shape, and greater robustness.
Metal-CDPFs were initially introduced
as passive-regeneration retrofit
technologies for diesel engines designed
to achieve approximately 60 percent
control of PM emissions. Recent data
from further development of these
systems for Euro-4 truck applications
has shown that metal-CDPF trapping
efficiency for elemental carbon PM can
exceed 70 percent for engines with
inherently low elemental carbon
emissions.104 Data from locomotive
testing confirms a relatively low
elemental carbon fraction and relatively
high organic fraction for PM emissions
from medium-speed Tier 2 locomotive
103 ‘‘Diesel Particulate Filter Maintenance:
Current Practices and Experience’’, Manufacturers
of Emission Controls Association, June 2005, https://
meca.org/galleries/default-file/
Filter_Maintenance_White_Paper_605_final.pdf.
104 Jacob, E., Lammerman, R., Pappenheimer, A.,
¨
Rothe, D. ‘‘Exhaust Gas Aftertreatment System for
Euro 4 Heavy-duty Engines’’, MTZ, June, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
engines.105 The use of an oxidizing
catalyst with platinum group metals
(PGM) coated directly to the CPDF
combined with a diesel oxidation
catalyst (DOC) mounted upstream of the
CDPF would provide 95 percent or
greater removal of HC, including the
semi-volatile organic compounds that
contribute to PM. Such systems would
reduce overall PM emissions from a
locomotive or marine diesel engine by
upwards of 90 percent.
We believe that locomotive and
marine diesel engine manufacturers will
benefit from the extensive development
taking place to implement DPF
technologies in advance of the heavyduty truck and nonroad PM standards in
Europe and the U.S. Given the steadystate operating characteristics of
locomotive and marine engines, DPF
regeneration strategies will certainly be
capable of precisely controlling PM
under all conditions and passively
regenerating whenever the exhaust gas
temperature is >250 °C. Therefore, we
believe that the Tier 4 PM standards we
are proposing for locomotive and
marine diesel engines are
technologically feasible. And given the
level of activity in the on-highway and
nonroad sectors to implement DPF
technology, we believe that our
proposed implementation dates for
locomotive and marine diesel engines
are appropriate and achievable.
(b) Catalytic NOX Emissions Control
Technology
We have analyzed a variety of
technologies available for NOX
reduction to determine their
applicability to diesel engines in the
locomotive and marine sectors. As
described in more detail in our draft
RIA, we are assuming locomotive and
marine diesel engine manufacturers will
choose to use—Selective Catalytic
Reduction, or SCR to comply with our
proposed standards. SCR is a commonly
used aftertreatment device for meeting
stricter NOX emissions standards in
diesel applications worldwide.
Stationary power plants fueled with
coal, diesel, and natural gas have used
SCR for three decades as a means of
controlling NOX emissions, and
currently, European heavy-duty truck
manufacturers are using this technology
to meet Euro 5 emissions limits. To a
lesser extent, SCR has been introduced
on diesel engines in the U.S. market, but
the applications have been limited to
marine ferryboat and stationary
electrical power generation
demonstration projects in California and
105 Smith, B., Sneed, W., Fritz, S. ‘‘AAR
Locomotive Emissions Testing 2005 Final Report’’.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
several of the Northeast states. However,
by 2010, when 100 percent of the heavyduty diesel trucks are required to meet
the NOX limits of the 2007 heavy-duty
highway rule, several heavy-duty truck
engine manufacturers have indicated
that they will use SCR technology.106 107
While other promising NOX-reducing
technologies such as lean NOX catalysts,
NOX adsorbers, and advanced
combustion control continue to be
developed (and may be viable
approaches to the standards we are
proposing today), our analysis assumes
that SCR will be the technology of
choice in the locomotive and marine
diesel engine sectors.
An SCR catalyst reduces nitrogen
oxides to elemental nitrogen (N2) and
water by using ammonia (NH3) as the
reducing agent. The most-common
method for supplying ammonia to the
SCR catalyst is to inject an aqueous
urea-water solution into the exhaust
stream. In the presence of hightemperature exhaust gasses (>200 °C),
the urea hydrolyzes to form NH3 and
CO2. The NH3 is stored on the surface
of the SCR catalyst where it is used to
complete the NOX-reduction reaction. In
theory, it is possible to achieve 100
percent NOX conversion if the NH3-toNOX ratio (a) is 1:1 and the space
velocity within the catalyst is not
excessive. However, given the space
limitations in packaging exhaust
aftertreatment devices in mobile
applications, an a of 0.85–1.0 is often
used to balance the need for high NOX
conversion rates against the potential for
NH3 slip (where NH3 passes through the
catalyst unreacted). The urea dosing
strategy and the desired a are dependent
on the conditions present in the exhaust
gas; namely temperature and the
quantity of NOX present (which can be
determined by engine mapping,
temperature sensors, and NOX sensors).
Overall NOX conversion efficiency,
especially under low-temperature
exhaust gas conditions, can be improved
by controlling the ratio of two NOX
species within the exhaust gas; NO2 and
NO. This can be accomplished through
use of an oxidation catalyst upstream of
the SCR catalyst to promote the
conversion of NO to NO2. The physical
size and catalyst formulation of the
oxidation catalyst are the principal
factors that control the NO2-to-NO ratio,
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
and by extension, improve the lowtemperature performance of the SCR
catalyst.
Recent studies have shown that an
SCR system is capable of providing well
in excess of 80 percent NOX reduction
efficiency in high-power, diesel
applications.108 thnsp109 thnsp;110
SCR catalysts can achieve significant
NOX reduction throughout much of the
exhaust gas temperature operating range
observed in locomotive and marine
applications. Collaborative research and
development activities between diesel
engine manufacturers, truck
manufacturers, and SCR catalyst
suppliers have also shown that SCR is
a mature, cost-effective solution for NOX
reduction on diesel engines in other
mobile sources. While many of the
published studies have focused on
highway truck applications, similar
trends, operational characteristics, and
NOX reduction efficiencies have been
reported for marine and stationary
applications as well.111 Given the
preponderance of studies and data—and
our analysis summarized here and
detailed in the draft RIA—we believe
that this technology is appropriate for
locomotive and marine diesel
applications. Furthermore, we believe
that locomotive and marine diesel
engine manufacturers will benefit from
the extensive development taking place
to implement SCR technologies in
advance of the heavy-duty truck NOX
standards in Europe and the U.S. The
urea dosing systems for SCR, already in
widespread use across many different
diesel applications, are expected to
become more refined, robust, and
reliable in advance of our proposed Tier
4 locomotive and marine standards.
Given the steady-state operating
characteristics of locomotive and marine
engines, SCR NOX control strategies will
certainly be capable of precisely
controlling NOX under all conditions
whenever the exhaust gas temperature is
greater than 150 °C.
To ensure that we have the most upto-date information on urea SCR NOX
technologies and their application to
locomotive and marine engines, we
have met with a number of locomotive
and marine engine manufacturers, as
well as manufacturers of catalytic NOX
108 Walker, A.P. et al., ‘‘The Development and InField 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15981
emissions control systems. Through our
discussions we have learned that some
engine manufacturers currently perceive
some risk regarding urea injection
accuracy and long-term catalyst
durability, both of which could result in
either less efficient NOX reduction or
ammonia emissions. We have carefully
investigated these issues, and we have
concluded that accurate urea injection
systems and durable catalysts already
exist and have been applied to urea SCR
NOX emissions control systems that are
similar to those that we expect to be
implemented in locomotive and marine
applications.
Urea injection systems applied to onhighway diesel trucks and diesel
electric power generators already ensure
accurate injection of urea, and these
applications have similar—if not more
dynamic—engine operation as
compared to locomotive and marine
engine operation. To ensure accurate
urea injection across all engine
operating conditions, these systems
utilize NOX sensors to maintain closedloop feedback control of urea injection.
These NOX sensor-based feedback
control systems are similar to oxygen
sensor-based systems that are used with
catalytic converters on virtually every
gasoline vehicle on the road today. We
believe these NOX sensor based control
systems are directly applicable to
locomotive and marine engines.
Ammonia emissions, which are
already minimized through the use of
closed-loop feedback urea injection, can
be all-but-eliminated with an oxidation
catalyst downstream of the SCR catalyst.
Such catalysts are in use today and have
been shown to be 95% effective at
reducing ammonia emissions.
Catalyst durability is affected by
sulfur and other chemicals that can be
present in some diesel fuel and
lubricating oil. These chemicals have
been eliminated in other applications by
the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
and low-SAPS (sulfated ash,
phosphorous, and sulfur) lubricating oil.
Locomotive and marine operators
already will be using ultra low sulfur
diesel by the time urea NOX SCR
systems would be needed, and low
SAPS oil can be used in locomotive and
marine engines. Thermal and
mechanical vibration durability of
catalysts has been addressed through
the selection of proper materials and the
design of support and mounting
structures that are capable of
withstanding the shock and vibration
levels present in locomotive and marine
applications. More details on catalyst
durability and urea injection accuracy
are available in the remainder of this
section and also in our draft RIA.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15982
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Even though we believe that the
issues of catalyst durability and urea
injection accuracy have been addressed
in existing NOX SCR emissions control
systems, we invite comments and the
submission of additional information
and data regarding catalyst durability
and urea injection accuracy.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(c) Durability of Catalytic PM and NOX
Emissions Control Technology
Published studies indicate that SCR
systems should experience very little
deterioration in NOX conversion
throughout the life-cycle of a diesel
engine.112 The principal mechanism of
deterioration in an SCR catalyst is
thermal sintering—the loss of catalyst
surface area due to the melting and
growth of active catalyst sites under
high-temperature conditions (as the
active sites melt and combine, the total
number of active sites at which catalysis
can occur is reduced). This effect can be
minimized by design of the SCR catalyst
washcoat and substrate for the exhaust
gas temperature window in which it
will operate. Another mechanism for
catalyst deterioration is catalyst
poisoning—the plugging and/or
chemical de-activation of active
catalytic sites. Phosphorus from the
engine oil and sulfur from diesel fuel
are the primary components in the
exhaust stream which can de-activate a
catalytic site. The risk of catalyst
deterioration due to sulfur poisoning
will be all but eliminated with the 2012
implementation of ULSD fuel (<15 ppm
S) for locomotive and marine
applications. Catalyst deterioration due
to phosphorous poisoning can be
reduced through the use of engine oil
with low sulfated-ash, phosphorus, and
sulfur content (low-SAPS oil) and
through reduced engine oil
consumption. The high ash content in
current locomotive and marine engine
oils is related to the need for a high total
base number (TBN) in the oil
formulation. Because today’s diesel fuel
has relatively high sulfur levels, a high
TBN in the engine oil is necessary today
to neutralize the acids created when
fuel-borne sulfur migrates to the
crankcase. With the use of ULSD fuel,
acid formation in the crankcase will not
be a significant concern. The low-SAPS
oil will be available for on-highway use
by October 2006 and is specified by the
American Petroleum Institute as ‘‘CJ–4.’’
We also expect that Tier 3 locomotive
and marine engine designs will have
reduced oil consumption in order to
112 Conway, R. et al., ‘‘NO and PM Reduction
X
Using Combined SCR and DPF Technology in
Heavy Duty Diesel Applications,’’ SAE Technical
Paper 2005–01–3548, 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
meet the Tier 3 PM standards, and that
the Tier 4 designs will be an
evolutionary development that will
apply catalytic exhaust controls to the
Tier 3 engine designs. The durability of
other exhaust aftertreatment devices,
namely the DOC and CDPF, will also
benefit from the use of ULSD fuel,
reduced oil consumption and low-SAPS
engine oil because the reduction in
exposure of these devices to sulfur and
phosphorous will improve their
effectiveness and the reduction in ash
loading will increase the CDPF ashcleaning intervals.
(d) Packaging of Catalytic PM and NOX
Emissions Control Technology
We project that locomotive
manufacturers will need to re-package/
re-design the exhaust system
components to accommodate the
aftertreatment system. Our analysis
shows the packaging requirements for
the aftertreatment system are such that
they can be accommodated within the
envelope defined by the Association of
American Railroads (AAR) Plate ‘‘L’’
clearance diagram for freight
locomotives.113 Typical volume
required for the SCR catalyst and postSCR ammonia slip catalyst for Euro V
and U.S. 2010 heavy-duty truck
applications is approximately 2 times
the engine displacement, and the
upstream DOC/CDPF volume is
approximately 1–1.5 times the engine
displacement. Due to the longer useful
life and maintenance intervals required
for locomotive applications, we estimate
that the SCR catalyst volume will be
sized at approximately 2.5 times the
engine displacement, and the combined
DOC/CDPF volume will be
approximately 1.7 times the engine
displacement. For an engine with 6 ft3
of total displacement, the volume
requirement for the aftertreatment
components would be approximately 25
ft3. EPA engineers have examined Tier
2 EMD and GE line-haul locomotives
and conclude that there is adequate
space to package these components.
This conclusion also applies to new
switcher locomotives, which, while
being shorter in length than line-haul
locomotives, will also be equipped with
smaller, less-powerful engines—
resulting in smaller volume
requirements for the aftertreatment
components. Given the space available
on today’s locomotives, we feel that
packaging catalytic PM and NOX
emissions control technology on-board
locomotives is actually less challenging
than packaging similar technology onboard other mobile sources such as
light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty trucks,
and nonroad equipment. Given that
similar exhaust systems are either
already implemented on-board these
vehicles or will be implemented on
these vehicles years before similar
systems would be required on-board
locomotives, we believe that any
packaging issues would be successfully
addressed early in the locomotive
redesign process.
For commercial vessels that use
marine diesel engines greater than 600
kW, we expect that marine vessel
builders will need to re-package and redesign the exhaust system components
to accommodate the aftertreatment
components expected to be necessary to
meet the proposed standards. Our
discussions with marine architects and
engineers, along with our review of
vessel characteristics, leads us to
conclude for commercial marine
vessels, adequate engine room space can
be made available to package
aftertreatment components. Packaging of
these components, and analyzing their
mass/placement effect on vessel
characteristics, will become part of the
design process undertaken by marine
architecture firms.114
We did determine, however, that for
recreational vessels and for vessels
equipped with engines less than 600
kW, catalytic PM and NOX exhaust
treatment systems were less practical
from a packaging standpoint than for the
larger, commercially operated vessels.
We did identify catalytic emissions
control systems that would significantly
reduce emissions from these smaller
vessels. However, after taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, we identified a
number of reasons why we are not
proposing at this time any standards
that would likely require catalytic
exhaust treatment systems on these
smaller vessels. One reason is that most
of these vessels use seawater (fresh or
saltwater) cooled exhaust systems, and
even seawater injection into their
exhaust systems, to cool engine exhaust
to prevent overheating materials such as
a fiberglass hull. This current practice of
cooling and seawater injection could
reduce the effectiveness of catalytic
exhaust treatment systems. This is
significantly more challenging than for
gasoline catalyst systems due to much
larger relative catalyst sizes and cooler
exhaust temperatures typical of diesel
engines. In addition, because of these
113 ‘‘AAR Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices,’’ Standard S–5510,
Association of American Railroads.
114 Telephone conversation between Brian King,
Elliot Bay Design Group, and Brian Nelson, EPA,
July 24, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(e) Infrastructure Impacts of Catalytic
PM and NOX Emissions Control
Technology
For PM trap technology the
locomotive and marine industries will
have minimal impact imposed upon
their industries’ infrastructures. Since
PM trap technology relies on no
separate reductant, any infrastructure
impacts would be limited to some minor
changes in maintenance practices or
maintenance facilities. Such
maintenance would be limited to the
infrequent process of removing
lubricating oil ash buildup from within
a PM trap. This type of maintenance
might require facilities to remove PM
traps for cleaning. This might involve
the use of a crane or other lifting device.
We understand that much of this kind
of infrastructure already exists for other
locomotive and marine engine
maintenance practices. We have toured
shipyards and locomotive maintenance
facilities at rail switchyards, and we
observed that such facilities are
generally already adequate for any
required PM trap maintenance.
We do expect some impact on the
railroad and marine sectors to
accommodate the use of a separate
reductant for use in a NOX SCR system.
For light-duty, heavy-duty, and nonroad
applications, the preferred reductant in
an SCR system is a 32.5 percent ureawater solution. The 32.5 percent
solution, also known as the ‘‘eutectic’’
concentration, provides the lowest
freezing point (¥11 °C or 12 °F) and
assures that the ratio of urea-to-water
will not change when the solution
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
begins to freeze.115 Heated storage tanks
and insulated dispensing equipment
may be necessary to prevent freeze-up
in Northern climates. In addition, the
urea dosing apparatus (urea storage
tank, pump, and lines) onboard the
locomotive or marine vessel may require
similar protections. Locomotives and
marine vessels are commonly refueled
from large, centralized fuel storage
tanks, tanker trucks, or tenders with
long-term purchase agreements. Urea
suppliers will be able to distribute urea
to the locomotive and marine markets in
a similar manner, or they may choose to
employ multi-compartment diesel fuel/
urea tanker trucks for delivery of both
products simultaneously. The frequency
that urea needs to be added will be
dependent on the urea storage capacity,
duty-cycle, and urea dosing rate for each
application. Discussions concerning the
urea infrastructure in North America
and specifications for an emissionsgrade urea solution are now under way
amongst light- and heavy-duty onhighway diesel stakeholders.
Although an infrastructure for
widespread transportation, storage, and
dispensing of SCR-grade urea does not
currently exist in the U.S., the affected
stakeholders in the light- and heavyduty on-highway and nonroad diesel
sectors are expected to follow the
European model, in which diesel
engine/truck manufacturers and fuel
refiners/distributors formed a
collaborative working group known as
‘‘AdBlue.’’ The goal of the AdBlue
organization is to resolve potential
problems with the supply, handling,
and distribution of urea and to establish
standards for product purity.116
Concerning urea production capacity,
the U.S. has more-than-sufficient
capacity to meet the additional needs of
the rail and marine industries. For
example, in 2003, the total diesel fuel
consumption for Class I railroads was
approximately 3.8 billion gallons.117 If
100 percent of the Class I locomotive
fleet were equipped with SCR catalysts,
approximately 190 million gallons-peryear of 32.5 percent urea-water solution
would be required.118 It is estimated
that 190 million gallons of urea solution
would require 0.28 million tons of dry
115 Miller, W. et al., ‘‘The Development of UreaSCR Technology for U.S. Heavy Duty Trucks,’’ SAE
Technical Paper 2000–01–0190, 2000.
116 ‘‘Ensuring the Availability and Reliability of
Urea Dosing for On-Road and Non-Road,’’ presented
by Glenn Barton, Terra Corp., 9th DEER Conference,
August 28, 2003.
117 ‘‘National Transportation Statistics—2004,’’
Table 4–5, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
118 Assuming the dosing rate of 32.5 percent ureawater solution is 5 percent of the total fuel
consumed; 3.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel * 0.05
= 190 million gallons of urea-water solution.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15983
urea (1 ton dry urea is needed to
produce 667 gallons of 32.5 percent
urea-water solution). Currently, the U.S.
consumes 14.7 million tons of ammonia
resources per year, and relies on imports
for 41 percent of that total (of which,
urea is the principal derivative). In 2005
domestic ammonia producers operated
their plants at 66 percent of rated
capacity, resulting in 4.5 million tons of
reserve production capacity.119 In the
hypothetical situation above, where 100
percent of the locomotive fleet required
urea, only 6.2 percent of the reserve
domestic capacity would be needed to
satisfy the additional demand. A similar
analysis for the marine industry, with a
yearly diesel fuel consumption of 2.2
billion gallons per year, would not
significantly impact the urea demandto-reserve capacity equation. Since the
rate at which urea-SCR technology is
introduced to the railroad and marine
markets will be gradual—and the
reserve urea production capacity is
more-than-adequate to meet the
expected demand in the 2017
timeframe—EPA does not project any
urea cost or supply issues will result
from implementing the proposed Tier 4
standards.
(3) The Proposed Standards Are
Technologically Feasible
Our proposal covers a wide range of
engines and the implementation of a
range of emissions controls
technologies, and we have identified a
range of technologically feasible
emissions control technologies that
likely would be used to meet our
proposed standards. Some of these
technologies are incremental
improvements to existing engine
components, and many of these
improved components have already
been applied to similar engines. The
other technologies we identified involve
catalytic exhaust treatment systems. For
these technologies we carefully
examined the catalyst technology, its
applicability to locomotive and marine
engine packaging constraints, its
durability with respect to the lifetime of
today’s locomotive and marine engines,
and its impact on the infrastructure of
the rail and marine industries. From our
analysis, which is presented in detail in
our draft RIA, we conclude that
incremental improvements to engine
components and the implementation of
catalytic PM and NOX exhaust treatment
technology would be feasible to meet
our proposed emissions standards.
119 ‘‘Mineral Commodity Summaries 2006,’’ page
118, U.S. Geological Survey,
www.minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/
mcs2006.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15984
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(4) A Request for Detailed Technical
Comments
We have carried out an extensive
outreach program with the regulated
industry to understand the potential
impacts and technical challenges to the
application of aftertreatment technology
to diesel locomotives and marine
engines. We are requesting comments
on all parts of our resulting analyses
summarized in the preceding sections
and presented in greater detail in the
Draft RIA.
Further, we request comment on the
following list of detailed questions
provided to the Agency by a stakeholder
regarding particular challenges in
applying aftertreatment technologies to
diesel locomotives. Some of these
questions raise concerns about the
feasibility of the proposed Tier 4
standards under specific environmental
conditions. We present theses questions
without endorsing the appropriateness
of applying these conditions to
locomotive catalyst designs. The reader
should refer to the preceding sections
and the draft RIA for our analyses of the
relevant issues.
(1) How do the following attributes of
the locomotive exhaust environment
impact the ability of a Zeolite SCR type
catalyst to operate within 10% of its ‘‘as
new’’ conversion efficiency (∼94%) after
34,000 MW-hours of operation?
Æ 150 hours per year operation at 600
Celsius exhaust temperature at the inlet
to the SCR, due to DPF regeneration.’’
(20-minute regeneration every 20 hours
of operation).
Æ 120 minutes per year operation at
700 Celsius.
Æ Soot exposure equal to 0.03 g/bhphr.
Æ Shock loading averaging 1,000
mechanical shock pulses per year due to
hard coupling.
Æ Extended periods of vibration
where the vibration load on the catalysts
can reach 6G and 1000 Hz.
Æ Water exposure due to rains, icing,
water spray and condensed frozen or
liquid water during 20% of its life.
Æ Salt fog consisting of 5 ± 1% salt
concentration by weight with fallout
rate between 0.00625 and 0.0375 ml/
cm2/hr.
Æ The catalysts will be subject to
sands composed of 95% of SiO2 with
particle size between 1 to 650 microns
in diameter with sand concentration of
1.1 ± 0.25 g/m3 and air velocity of 29 m/
s (104 km/h).
Æ Exposure to dusts comprised of red
china clay and silicon flour of particle
sizes that are between 1 to 650 microns
in diameter with dust concentration of
10.6 ± 7 g/m3 with a velocity equal to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
locomotive motion velocity on catalyst
surfaces.
(2) Is it feasible for a Zeolite SCR
catalyst (as compared to the Vanadiumbased catalysts) to operate within 10%
of its as new conversion efficiency
(~94%) after sustained exposure to real
exhaust? If it is, why is it feasible? If it
is not feasible, please explain why it is
not.
(3) Is it feasible to maintain the
conversion efficiency of a diesel
oxidation catalyst at least at 45% in the
same catalyst environment described in
(1) above? In your comments, please
explain why or why not.
(4) The feasibility of achieving low
ammonia slip, i.e., less than 5 ppm,
from urea-based SCR systems that dose
at or above 1:1 ratios when applied to
an exhaust stream with 500–600 ppm
NOX under both steady state and
transient load conditions.
(5) The feasibility of a reliable NOX
sensor with 5% accuracy to control urea
dosing sufficiently to achieve a 95%
NOX conversion efficiency using a
Zeolite-based SCR when not kinetically
limited.
(6) The expected level of ammonia
slip catalyst selectivity back to NOX
when a Zeolite-based SCR is dosed at
1:1 ratios and applied to diesel engines
above 3.0 MW with an exhaust stream
of 500–600 ppm NOX.
(7) The effect on overall locomotive
weight and balance when applying DPF
and SCR devices with a weight in excess
of 8000 lbs and volume in excess of 40
cubic feet mounted above the engine.
(8) The expected effect on locomotive
operating range when adding urea
storage equal to 5% of locomotive fuel
capacity and a 2% decrease in
locomotive fuel efficiency.
(9) Incidental emissions generation
resulting from the production and
distribution of urea for railroad usage
(200,000,000 gallons/year).
(10) The comparative performance of
a given engine on the marine v.
locomotive duty cycle to include an
assessment of SCR technologies (i.e.,
Zeolilte v. Vanadium), expected
effectiveness for each application, and
any considerations that may be unique
for one application versus the other that
could impact overall NOX conversion
effectiveness.
(11) The impact of the proposed Tier
4 NOX limit of 1.3 g/hp-hr versus
incrementally higher limits on fuel burn
and greenhouse gas emissions.
EPA notes that many of these issues
are addressed elsewhere in the preamble
and in the draft RIA. We invite
comment on these questions in the
context of the information provided
elsewhere on these issues. In providing
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comments to these eleven questions, we
ask that commenters provide
information both directly responsive to
the individual question and further to
the relevance of the question in
determining the appropriate emission
standard for diesel locomotives. For
example, question 1 lists a wide range
of conditions for catalyst systems on a
diesel locomotive. In that context, EPA
also invites comment on the following
questions.
• How do the shock loading,
vibration loading, soot exposure, and
temperature exposure conditions listed
in Question 1 compare to conditions
faced by other applications of Zeolitetype urea SCR systems that are either
under development or that have been
developed for on-highway diesel,
nonroad diesel, marine and stationary
gas turbine applications?
• Question 1 asserts that a locomotive
catalyst design would directly expose
catalyst substrates to rain water, icing,
water spray and condensed frozen or
liquid water during 20% of its life. Are
there catalyst packaging and installation
issues that would necessitate any direct
exposure of catalyst substrates to
weather?
• Question 1 implies that a
locomotive catalyst design would
directly expose catalyst substrates to salt
fogs consisting of 5 ± 1% salt
concentration by weight with fallout
rate between 0.00625 and 0.0375 ml/
cm2/hr. What salt concentrations in salt
fogs and what fallout rates have SCR
systems applied to ocean-going vessels
been exposed to? How would the
systems designs, exposures and impacts
be similar to or different from
locomotive applications? Are there
unique characteristics of locomotive
catalyst installations that would
increase their exposure to salt fog
relative to other applications operated
near or in ocean environments? What
direct experiences have ocean-going
vessels had regarding the durability of
their catalytic emission control systems?
• Question 1 implies that locomotive
catalyst systems must withstand
exposure to sand ingested by the engine
at a rate of up to 50 pounds per hour
at notch 8. The question also implies
that locomotive catalyst substrates must
withstand exposure to a combination of
red china clay and silicon flour at a rate
of up to one-quarter ton per hour at
notch 8. Are these appropriate metrics
that reasonably take into consideration
the design of the locomotive air-intake
and filtration system and the ability of
the engine and turbocharger systems to
withstand such extreme exposure to
ingestion of abrasive materials? Are tests
replicating this condition routinely
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
conducted to demonstrate the durability
of the engine and turbocharger systems
and emissions compliance following
such high rates of engine ingestion of
abrasive materials?
• Questions 2 and 3 imply that
greater than 45% DOC oxidation
efficiency is required to maintain
Zeolite SCR catalyst efficiency at greater
than 94% NOX efficiency, and that 94%
NOX efficiency is required to meet the
proposed Tier 4 NOX standard. Is greater
than 45% oxidation efficiency for an
upstream DOC necessary for
locomotives to meet the 1.3 g/bhp-hr
NOX standard over the range of exhaust
temperature encountered by
locomotives over the line-haul duty
cycle when using a Zeolite-based SCR
system? Is 94% NOX efficiency from the
current Tier 2 locomotive baseline even
necessary to achieve 1.3 g/bhp-hr NOX
emissions when using a Zeolite SCR
catalyst system over the line-haul dutycycle?
• What level of ammonia slip is
achievable from modern urea-SCR
systems using closed-loop feedback
control? Is 5 ppm an appropriate level
to set for maximum ammonia slip under
any conditions?
• Is 5% of point the limit of zirconiaNOX sensor accuracy? Does NOX sensor
accuracy currently limit NOX
conversion efficiency of feedback
controlled SCR systems, and if so by
how much? What level of NOX
conversion efficiency using a Zeolitebased SCR when not kinetically limited
is achievable using current feedback
control systems using of zirconia-NOX
sensors? What level of NOX conversion
efficiency can be expected taking into
consideration projected NOX sensor and
feedback control system development
over the next ten to fifteen years?
Comments submitted should provide
detailed technical information and data
to the extent possible. The EPA solicits
comment on the extent to which any
factor may impact the ability to achieve
the proposed standard and if the
proposed standard cannot be achieved
in the commenter’s view, what standard
can be achieved.
E. What Are EPA’s Plans for Diesel
Marine Engines on Large Ocean-Going
Vessels?
Today’s proposal covers marine diesel
engines up to 30 l/cyl displacement
installed on vessels flagged or registered
in the U.S. There are two additional
significant sources of air pollution from
diesel marine engines which are not
covered by today’s proposal: first,
marine diesel engines of any size
(Category 1, 2 or 3) installed on foreignflagged vessels; and second, marine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
diesel engines at or above 30 l/cyl
displacement (Category 3) installed on
U.S. flagged vessels. The largest
environmental concern for these types
of engines are the large, ocean-going
marine vessels (OGV), which are
typically larger than 2,000 gross tons
and involved primarily in international
commerce. Ocean-going marine vessels
typically are powered by one or more
Category 3 diesel engines for propulsion
of the vessel, and they typically also
have several Category 2 engines to
provide auxiliary power. Engines on
OGV are predominately fueled by
residual fuel (often called ‘‘heavy fuel
oil’’), which is a by-product of distilling
crude oil to produce lighter petroleum
products such as gasoline, distillate
diesel fuel, and kerosene and has a high
sulfur content, up to 45,000 ppm.120
Ocean-going vessels are a significant
contributor to air pollution in the
United States, in particular in coastal
areas and ports. Current projections
indicate that on a national level, OGVs
flagged in the U.S. and other countries
will contribute about 21 percent of
mobile source PM, 12 percent NOX and
76 percent of SOX in the year 2030.
These contributions can be much higher
in some coastal and port areas.
However, recent inventory estimates
performed for the California Air
Resources Board and the Commission
for Environmental Cooperation in North
America suggest that we are
significantly underestimating the
emissions for C3 engines, by as much as
a factor of 2 or 3.121
EPA has a number of activities
underway which hold promise for
reducing air pollution from OGVs.
These include: a future rulemaking
action on C3 engine standards;
negotiations underway at the
International Maritime Organization to
establish a new set of environmentally
protective international emission
standards for OGVs; studies to assess
the feasibility of establishing one or
more SOX Emission Control Areas
adjacent to North America to reduce
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15985
SOX and particulate matter from OGVs;
and voluntary actions through our Clean
Ports USA program.
(1) Future C3 Marine Rule
In 2003 we issued a final rule for new
C3 engines installed on U.S. flagged
vessels. That final action established
NOX limits for new C3 engines which
are equal to the current international
NOX standards for C3 engines
established through Annex VI of the
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL 73/78). The MARPOL
standards are based on the capabilities
of emission control technologies from
the early 1990s, and are significantly
higher then emission standards for any
other mobile source in the United
States. In the 2003 final rule, we
identified the technical challenges
associated with the application of aftertreatment technologies to these engines
and vessels, but committed to revisiting
the issue of the appropriate long-term
emission standards for C3 marine
engines, both those which are on vessels
flagged in the U.S. and those which are
installed on foreign flagged vessels. In
revisiting the standards we indicated
that we would consider the state of
technology that may permit deeper
emission reductions and the status of
international action for more stringent
standards. We committed to a final
Agency action by April 27, 2007.
In 2003, we believed the next round
of emission standard discussions at the
IMO would be well underway, if not
concluded, by April of 2006. In 2003,
we also believed the IMO deliberations
would be one of the avenues to explore
improvements in emission control
technology for C3 engines and oceangoing vessels, and would provide
valuable technical input for EPA’s C3
rulemaking.
Despite efforts by the United States
Government at IMO, deliberations
regarding future emission standards for
OGV did not begin until April 2006. The
current round of negotiations at IMO is
expected to continue through 2007. The
discussions thus far at IMO have
yielded new technical information
which EPA will be able to make use of
in our future C3 rulemaking. We expect
to issue a revised schedule for the C3
rule in the next few months as well as
solicit comments on the appropriate
technologies, standards, and lead time
EPA should consider for C3 standards.
(2) International Standards Deliberation
at IMO
With respect to the discussions
currently underway at the IMO, the
United States Government is actively
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15986
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
engaged in the negotiation of a new set
of international standards for Annex VI
to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL Annex VI). Since the current
Annex VI NOX limits have entered into
effect, and in the time frame since EPA
issued our 2003 rule, improvements in
both in-cylinder and external emission
control technologies have been
demonstrated, both in the laboratory
and on-board OGVs. These technologies
offer the potential to substantially
reduce NOX emissions from OGVs. In
addition, the use of lower sulfur
residual or distillate fuels and/or the use
of SOX scrubbing technologies offer the
potential to substantially reduce PM and
SOX emissions from OGVs. We believe
the member states of the IMO, including
the United States, have a unique
opportunity to establish appropriate
long-term standards to address air
pollution from OGVs.
The current discussions for the next
tier of engine emission standards at IMO
also provide an opportunity to apply
emission reduction technologies to
existing vessels. EPA is a strong
supporter of reducing pollution of
existing vessels through mandatory
rebuild/retrofit requirements and we
will continue to pursue this objective at
the IMO.
(3) SOX Emission Control Areas
The existing international agreements
adopted by the IMO provide the
opportunity for signatories to Annex VI
of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships to
propose the designation of one or more
SOX Emission Control Areas (SECA).
When operating in a SECA, all OGVs
must either use fuel with a maximum
sulfur content of 15,000 ppm or use
emission control technology such that
the vessel meets a SOX limit of 6 g/kWhr (a value deemed equivalent to 15,000
ppm sulfur). This represents only
approximately a 45 percent reduction in
SOX emissions compared to the worldwide fuel sulfur average for heavy-fuel
oil of about 27,000 ppm. EPA is
currently performing environmental
impact and economic analyses that will
assist the federal government in making
a determination whether the U.S.
Government should consider a proposal
designating a SECA to one or more areas
adjacent to North America. We are
working closely with the Canadian
Government Canada) on these efforts,
and we also intend to coordinate our
actions with Mexico. This could allow
for the inclusion of additional coastal
areas within SECAs for North American.
It must be noted that the United States
has not yet ratified Annex VI and any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
decision regarding whether the United
States will pursue the designation of a
SECA will be influenced by where the
United States stands with respect to
ratification of MARPOL Annex VI.
(4) Clean Ports USA
As part of EPA’s National Clean
Diesel Campaign, Clean Ports USA is an
incentive-based, public-private
partnership designed to reduce
emissions from existing diesel engines
and vessels at ports. The Clean Ports
USA team works to bring together
partners and build coalitions to identify
and develop cost-effective diesel
emission reduction projects that address
the key issues affecting ports today. EPA
provides technical support in verifying
the effectiveness of retrofit technology,
to ensure through rigorous testing that
the emissions reductions promised by
vendors are in fact achieved in the field.
Clean Ports USA is providing
incentives to port authorities, terminal
operators, cargo interests, trucking
fleets, and maritime fleet owners to:
• Retrofit and replace older diesel
engines with verified technologies such
as diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs),
diesel particulate filters (DPFs).
• Use cleaner fuels (ultra-low sulfur
diesel fuel, emulsions).
• Increase operational efficiency,
including environmental management
systems, logistics, and appointment
systems.
• Reduce engine idling.
• Replace older engines with new,
cleaner engines.
Additional information is available on
the Clean Ports USA Web site at
www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports.
IV. Certification and Compliance
Program
This section describes the regulatory
changes proposed for the locomotive
and marine compliance programs. The
most obvious change is that the
proposed regulations have been written
in plain language. They are structured to
contain the provisions that are specific
to locomotives in a new proposed part
1033 and contain the provisions that are
specific to marine engines and vessels
in a new proposed part 1042. We also
propose to apply the general provisions
of existing parts 1065 and 1068.122 The
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed plain language regulations,
however, are not intended to
significantly change the compliance
program, except as specifically noted in
today’s notice (and we are not reopening
for comment the substance of any part
of the program that remains unchanged
substantively). As proposed, these plain
language regulations would supersede
the regulations in part 92 and 94 (for
Categories 1 and 2) as early as the 2008
model year. See section III for the
starting dates for different engines. The
changes from the existing programs are
described below along with other
notable aspects of the compliance
program. Note: The term manufacturer
is used in this section to include
locomotive and marine manufacturers
and locomotive remanufacturers. It
would also include marine
remanufacturers if we finalize
remanufacture standards.
A. Issues Common to Locomotives and
Marine
For many aspects of compliance, we
are proposing similar provisions for
marine engines and locomotives, which
are discussed in this section. Also
included in this section are issues
which are similar, but where we are
proposing different provisions. The
other compliance issues are discussed
in sections IV. B. (for locomotives) and
IV. C. (for marine).
(1) Modified Test Procedures
(a) Incorporation of Part 1065 Test
Procedures for Locomotive and Marine
Diesel Engines
As part of our initiative to update the
content, organization and writing style
of our regulations, we are revising our
test procedures. We have grouped all of
our engine dynamometer and field
testing test procedures into one part
entitled, ‘‘Part 1065: Test Procedures.’’
For each engine or vehicle sector for
which we have recently promulgated
standards (such as land-based nonroad
diesel engines or recreational vehicles),
we identified an individual part as the
standard-setting part for that sector.
These standard-setting parts then refer
to one common set of test procedures in
part 1065. We intend in this proposal to
continue this process of having all our
engine programs refer to a common set
of procedures by applying part 1065 to
all locomotive and marine diesel
engines.
In the past, each engine or vehicle
sector had its own set of testing
procedures. There are many similarities
in test procedures across the various
sectors. However, as we introduced new
regulations for individual sectors, the
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
more recent regulations featured test
procedure updates and improvements
that the other sectors did not have. As
this process continued, we recognized
that a single set of test procedures
would allow for improvements to occur
simultaneously across engine and
vehicle sectors. A single set of test
procedures is easier to understand than
trying to understand many different sets
of procedures, and it is easier to move
toward international test procedure
harmonization if we only have one set
of test procedures. We note that
procedures that are particular for
different types of engines or vehicles,
for example, test schedules designed to
reflect the conditions expected in use
for particular types of vehicles or
engines, would remain separate and
would be reflected in the standardsetting parts of the regulations.
As compared to the existing
locomotive and marine diesel test
procedures found in parts 92 and 94,
part 1065 test procedures are organized
and written for improved clarity. In
addition, we are proposing part 1065 for
locomotive and marine diesel engines to
improve the content of their respective
testing specifications, including the
following:
• Specifications and calculations
written in the international system of
units (SI).
• Procedures by which manufacturers
can demonstrate that alternate test
procedures are equivalent to specified
procedures.
• Specifications for new
measurement technology that has been
shown to be equivalent or more accurate
than existing technology.
• Procedures that improve test
repeatability.
• Calculations that simplify
emissions determination.
• New procedures for field testing
engines.
• More comprehensive sets of
definitions, references, and symbols.
• Calibration and accuracy
specifications that are scaled to the
applicable standard, which allows us to
adopt a single specification that applies
to a wide range of engine sizes and
applications.
Some emission-control programs
already rely on the test procedures in
part 1065. These programs regulate
land-based on-highway heavy-duty
engines, land-based nonroad diesel
engines, recreational vehicles, and
nonroad spark-ignition engines over 19
kW.
We are adopting the lab-testing and
field-testing specifications in part 1065
for all locomotive and marine diesel
engines. These procedures replace those
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
currently published in parts 92 and 94.
We are making a gradual transition from
the part 92 and 94 procedures. For
several years, manufacturers would be
able to optionally use the part 1065
procedures. Part 1065 procedures would
be required for any new testing by the
model year in which the Tier 4 standard
applies to a locomotive or marine diesel
engine or by 2012 for a locomotive or
marine diesel engine that is not
proposed to be subject to a Tier 4
standard. For any testing completed for
any emissions standard that is less
stringent than the respective Tier 4
standard, manufacturers may continue
to rely on carryover test data based on
part 92 or 94 procedures to certify
engine families in later years. In
addition, for any other programs that
refer to the test procedures in parts 92
or 94, we are including updated
references for all these other programs
to refer instead to the appropriate cite in
part 1065.
Part 1065 is also advantageous for inuse testing because it specifies the same
procedures for all common parts of field
testing and laboratory testing. It also
contains new provisions that help
ensure that engines are tested in a
laboratory in a way that is consistent
with how they operate in use. These
new provisions would ensure that
engine dynamometer lab testing and
field testing are conducted in a
consistent way.
In the future, we may apply the test
procedures specified in part 1065 to
other types of engines, so we encourage
companies involved in producing or
testing other engines to stay informed of
developments related to these test
procedures.
(b) Revisions to Part 1065
Part 1065 was originally adopted on
November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68242), and
was initially applicable to standards
regulating large nonroad spark-ignition
engines and recreational vehicles under
40 CFR parts 1048 and 1051. The recent
rulemaking adopting emission standards
for nonroad diesel engines has also
made part 1065 optional for Tier 2 and
Tier 3 nonroad standards and required
for Tier 4 standards. The test procedures
initially adopted in part 1065 were
sufficient to conduct testing, but on July
13, 2005 (70 FR 11534) we promulgated
a final rule that reorganized these
procedures and added content to make
various improvements. In particular, we
reorganized part 1065 by subparts as
shown below:
• Subpart A: General provisions;
global information on applicability,
alternate procedures, units of measure,
etc.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15987
• Subpart B: Equipment
specifications; required hardware for
testing.
• Subpart C: Measurement
instruments.
• Subpart D: Calibration and
verifications; for measurement systems.
• Subpart E: Engine selection,
preparation, and maintenance.
• Subpart F: Test protocols; step-bystep sequences for laboratory testing and
test validation.
• Subpart G: Calculations and
required information.
• Subpart H: Fuels, fluids, and
analytical gases.
• Subpart I: Oxygenated fuels; special
test procedures.
• Subpart J: Field testing and portable
emissions measurement systems.
• Subpart K: Definitions, references,
and symbols.
The regulations now prescribe scaled
specifications for test equipment and
measurement instruments by parameters
such as engine power, engine speed and
the emission standards to which an
engine must comply. That way this
single set of specifications would cover
the full range of engine sizes and our
full range of emission standards.
Manufacturers would be able to use
these specifications to determine what
range of engines and emission standards
may be tested using a given laboratory
or field testing system.
The content of part 1065 is mostly a
combination of content from our most
recent updates to other test procedures
and from test procedures specified by
the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). In some cases,
however, there is new content that
never existed in previous regulations.
This new content addresses very recent
issues such as measuring very low
concentrations of emissions, using new
measurement technology, using portable
emissions measurement systems, and
performing field testing. A detailed
description of the changes is provided
in a memorandum to the docket.123
The new content also reflects a shift
in our approach for specifying
measurement performance. In the past
we specified numerous calibration
accuracies for individual measurement
instruments, and we specified some
verifications for individual components,
such as NO2 to NO converters. We have
shifted our focus away from individual
instruments and toward the overall
performance of complete measurement
systems. We did this for several reasons.
First, some of what we specified in the
123 Memorandum to docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
0190, ‘‘Redline/Strikeout of 40 CFR 1065 (Test
Procedures) Changes and Additions’’.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15988
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
past precluded the implementation of
new measurement technologies. These
new technologies, sometimes called
‘‘smart analyzers’’, combine signals from
multiple instruments to compensate for
interferences that were previously
tolerable at higher emissions levels.
These analyzers are useful for detecting
low concentrations of emissions. They
are also useful for detecting emissions
from raw exhaust, which can contain
high concentrations of interferences,
such as water vapor. This is particularly
important for field testing, which will
most likely rely upon raw exhaust
measurements. Second, this new
‘‘systems approach’’ challenges
complete measurement systems with a
series of periodic verifications, which
we feel will provide a more robust
assurance that a measurement system as
a whole is operating properly. Third, the
systems approach provides a direct
pathway to demonstrate that a field test
system performs similarly to a
laboratory system. This is explained in
more detail in item 10 below. Finally,
we feel that our systems approach will
lead to a more efficient way of assuring
measurement performance in the
laboratory and in the field. We believe
that this efficiency will stem from less
frequent individual instrument
calibrations, and higher confidence that
a complete measurement system is
operating properly.
We have organized the new content
relating to measurement systems
performance into subparts C and D. We
specify measurement instruments in
subpart C and calibrations and periodic
system verifications in subpart D. These
two subparts apply to both laboratory
and field testing. We have organized
content specific to running a laboratory
emissions test in subpart F, and we
separated content specific to field
testing in subpart J.
In subpart C we specify the types of
acceptable instruments, but we only
recommend individual instrument
performance. We provide these
recommendations as guidance for
procuring new instruments. We feel that
the periodic verifications that we
require in subpart D will sufficiently
evaluate the individual instruments as
part of their respective overall
measurement systems. In subpart F we
specify performance validations that
must be conducted as part of every
laboratory test. In subpart J we specify
similar performance validations for field
testing that must be conducted as part
of every field test. We feel that the
periodic verifications in subpart D and
the validations for every test that we
prescribed in subparts F and J ensure
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
that complete measurement systems are
operating properly.
In subpart J we also specify an
additional overall verification of
portable emissions measurement
systems (PEMS). This verification is a
comprehensive comparison of a PEMS
versus a laboratory system, and it may
take several days of laboratory time to
set up, run, and evaluate. However, we
only require that this particular
verification must be performed at least
once for a given make, model, and
configuration of a field test system.
Below is a brief description of the
content of each subpart, highlighting
some of the most important content.
(i) Subpart A: General Provisions
In Subpart A we identify the
applicability of part 1065 and describe
how procedures other than those in part
1065 may be used to comply with a
standard-setting part. In § 1065.10(c)(1),
we specify that testing must be
conducted in a way that represents inuse engine operation, such that in the
rare case where provisions in part 1065
result in unrepresentative testing, other
procedures would be used.
Other information in this subpart
includes a description of the
conventions we use regarding units and
certain measurements; and we discuss
recordkeeping. We also provide an
overview of how emissions and other
information are used to determine final
emission results. The regulations in
§ 1065.15 include a figure illustrating
the different ways we allow brakespecific emissions to be calculated.
In this same subpart, we describe how
continuous and batch sampling may be
used to determine total emissions. We
also describe the two ways of
determining total work that we approve.
Note that the figure indicates our default
procedures and those procedures that
require additional approval before we
will allow them.
(ii) Subpart B: Equipment Specifications
Subpart B first describes engine and
dynamometer related systems. Many of
these specifications are scaled to an
engine’s size, speed, torque, exhaust
flow rate, etc. We specify the use of inuse engine subsystems such as air intake
systems wherever possible in order to
best represent in-use operation when an
engine is tested in a laboratory.
Subpart B also describes sampling
dilution systems. These include
specifications for the allowable
components, materials, pressures, and
temperatures. We describe how to
sample crankcase emissions. Subpart B
also specifies environmental conditions
for PM filter stabilization and weighing.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The regulations in § 1065.101 include
a diagram illustrating all the available
equipment for measuring emissions.
(iii) Subpart C: Measurement
Instruments
Subpart C specifies the requirements
for the measurement instruments used
for testing. In subpart C we recommend
accuracy, repeatability, noise, and
response time specifications for
individual measurement instruments,
but note that we only require that
overall measurement systems meet the
calibrations and verifications in Subpart
D.
In some cases we allow instrument
types to be used where we previously
did not allow them in parts 92 or 94. For
example, we now allow the use of a
nonmethane cutter for NMHC
measurement, a nondispersive
ultraviolet analyzer for NOX
measurement, a zirconia sensor for O2
measurement, various raw-exhaust flow
meters for laboratory and field testing
measurement, and an ultrasonic flow
meter for CVS systems.
(iv) Subpart D: Calibrations and
Verifications
Subpart D describes what we mean
when we specify accuracy, repeatability
and other parameters in Subpart C. We
are adopting calibrations and
verifications that scale with engine size
and with the emission standards to
which an engine is certified. We are
replacing some of what we have called
‘‘calibrations’’ in the past with a series
of verifications, such as a linearity
verification, which essentially verifies
the calibration of an instrument without
specifying how the instrument must be
initially calibrated. Because new
instruments have built-in routines that
linearize signals and compensate for
various interferences, our existing
calibration specifications in parts 92
and 94 sometimes conflicted with an
instrument manufacturer’s instructions.
In addition, there are new verifications
in subpart D to ensure that the new
instruments we specify in Subpart C are
used correctly.
(v) Subpart E: Engine Selection,
Preparation, and Maintenance
Subpart E describes how to select,
prepare, and maintain a test engine.
(vi) Subpart F: Test Protocols
Subpart F describes the step-by-step
protocols for engine mapping, test cycle
generation, test cycle validation, pre-test
preconditioning, engine starting,
emission sampling, and post-test
validations. We allow modest
corrections for drift of emission analyzer
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
signals within a certain range. We
recommend a step-by-step procedure for
weighing PM samples.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(vii) Subpart G: Calculations and
Required Information
Subpart G includes all the
calculations required in part 1065.
Subpart G includes definitions of
statistical quantities such as mean,
standard deviation, slope, intercept, ttest, F-test, etc. By defining these
quantities mathematically we intend to
resolve any potential miscommunication when we discuss these
quantities in other subparts. We have
written all calculations for calibrations
and emission calculations in
international units. For our standards
that are not completely in international
units (i.e., grams/horsepower-hour,
grams/mile), we specify in part 1065 the
correct use of internationally recognized
conversion factors.
We also specify emission calculations
based on molar quantities for flow rates,
instead of volume or mass. This change
eliminates the frequent confusion
caused by using different reference
points for standard pressure and
standard temperature. Instead of
declaring standard densities at standard
pressure and standard temperature to
convert volumetric concentration
measurements to mass-based units, we
declare molar masses for individual
elements and compounds. Since these
values are independent of all other
parameters, they are known to be
universally constant.
(viii) Subpart H: Fuels, Fluids, and
Analytical Gases
Subpart H specifies test fuels,
lubricating oils and coolants, and
analytical gases for testing. We
eliminated the Cetane Index
specification for all diesel fuels, because
the existing specification for Cetane
Number sufficiently determines the
cetane levels of diesel test fuels. We do
not identify any detailed specification
for service accumulation fuel. Instead,
we specify that service accumulation
fuel may be either a test fuel or a
commercially available in-use fuel. We
include a list of ASTM specifications for
in-use fuels as examples of appropriate
service accumulation fuels. We include
an allowance for engine manufacturers
to use in-use test fuels that do not meet
all of the specifications, provided that
the in-use fuel does not adversely affect
the manufacturer’s ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standard. For example a fuel
that would result in lower emissions
versus the certification fuel would
generally adversely affect a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
manufacturers ability to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable
standards. We also allow the use of
ASTM test methods specified in 40 CFR
Part 80 in lieu of those specified in part
1065. We did this because we more
frequently review and update the ASTM
methods in 40 CFR Part 80 versus those
in part 1065.
(ix) Subpart I: Oxygenated Fuels
Subpart I describes special procedures
for measuring certain hydrocarbons
whenever oxygenated fuels are used. We
allow the use of the California NMOG
test procedures to measure alcohols and
carbonyls.
(x) Subpart J: Field Testing and Portable
Emissions Measurement Systems
As described in Subpart J, Portable
Emissions Measurement Systems
(PEMS) must generally meet the same
specifications and verifications that
laboratory instruments must meet,
according to subparts B, C, and D.
However, we allow some deviations
from laboratory specifications. In
addition to meeting many of the
laboratory system requirements, a PEMS
must meet an overall verification
relative to a series of laboratory
measurements. This verification
involves repeating a duty cycle several
times. This is a comprehensive
verification of a PEMS. We are also
adopting a procedure for preparing and
conducting a field test, and we are
adopting drift corrections for PEMS
emission analyzers. Given the evolving
state of PEMS technology, the fieldtesting procedures provide for a number
of known measurement techniques. We
have added provisions and conditions
for the use of PEMS in an engine
dynamometer laboratory to conduct
laboratory testing.
(xi) Subpart K: Definitions, References,
and Symbols
In Subpart K we define terms
frequently used in part 1065. For
example we have defined ‘‘brake
power’’, ‘‘constant-speed engine’’, and
‘‘aftertreatment’’ to provide more clarity,
and we have definitions for things such
as ‘‘300 series stainless steel’’,
‘‘barometric pressure’’, and ‘‘operator
demand’’. There are definitions such as
‘‘duty cycle’’ and ‘‘test interval’’ to
distinguish the difference between a
single interval over which brake-specific
emissions are calculated and the
complete cycle over which emissions
are evaluated in a laboratory. We also
present a thorough and consistent set of
symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms
in subpart K.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15989
(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-
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15990
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sensitive technology (such as oxidation
catalysts). However, as a condition of
this allowance, the manufacturer would
be required to add an additional amount
to the measured PM emissions to make
them equivalent to what would have
been measured using LSD. For example,
we would allow a manufacturer to test
with ULSD if they adjusted the
measured PM emissions upward by 0.01
g/bhp-hr (which would be a relatively
conservative adjustment).
We are proposing special fuel
provisions for Tier 3 locomotives and
Tier 2 remanufacture systems. We are
proposing that the test fuel for these be
ULSD without sulfur correction since
these locomotives will use ULSD in use
for most of their service lives. However,
unlike Tier 4 locomotives, we would not
require them to be labeled to require the
use of ULSD, unless they included
sulfur sensitive technology.
We are proposing a new flexibility for
locomotives and Category 2 marine
engines to reduce fuel costs for testing.
Because these engines can consume 200
gallons of diesel fuel per hour at full
load, fuel can represent a significant
fraction of the testing cost, especially if
the manufacturer must use specially
blended fuel rather than commercially
available fuel. To reduce this cost, we
are proposing to allow manufacturers to
perform testing of locomotives and
Category 2 engines with commercially
available diesel fuel.
For both locomotive and marine
engines, all of the specifications
described above would apply to
emission testing conducted for
certification, selective enforcement
audits, and in-use, as well as any other
testing for compliance purposes for
engines in the designated model years.
Any compliance testing of previous
model year engines would be done with
the fuels designated in our regulations
for those model years.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 1033.101(e) of the proposed
regulations for the detailed calculation.
Marine engines would continue to be
subject to not-to-exceed (NTE)
standards, however, we are proposing
certain changes to these standards based
upon our understanding of in-use
marine engine operation and based
upon the underlying Tier 3 and Tier 4
duty cycle emissions standards that we
are proposing. As background, we
determine NTE compliance by first
applying a multiplier to the duty-cycle
emission standard, and then we
compare to that value an emissions
result that is recorded when an engine
runs within a certain range of engine
operation. This range of operation is
called an NTE zone (see 40 CFR 94.106).
The first regulation of ours that
included NTE standards was the
commercial marine diesel regulation,
finalized in 1999. After we finalized that
regulation, we promulgated other NTE
regulations for both heavy-duty onhighway and nonroad diesel engines.
We also finalized a regulation that
requires heavy-duty on-highway engine
manufacturers to conduct field testing to
demonstrate in-use compliance with the
on-highway NTE standards. Throughout
our development of these other
regulations, we have learned many
details about how best to specify NTE
zones and multipliers that would ensure
the greatest degree of in-use emissions
control, while at the same time would
avoid disproportionately stringent
requirements for engine operation that
has only a minor contribution to an
engine’s overall impact on the
environment. Based upon the Tier 3 and
Tier 4 standards we are proposing—and
our best information of in-use marine
engine operation—we are proposing
certain improvements to our marine
NTE standards.
For marine engines we are proposing
a broadening of the NTE zones in order
to better control emissions in regions of
engine operation where an engine’s
emissions rates (i.e. grams/hour, tons/
day) are greatest; namely at high engine
speed and high engine load. This is
especially important for commercial
marine engines because they typically
operate at steady-state at high-speed and
high-load operation. This proposed
change also would make our marine
NTE zones much more similar to our
on-highway and nonroad NTE zones.
Additionally, we analyzed different
ways to define the marine NTE zones,
and we determined a number of ways to
improve and simplify the way we define
and calculate the borders of these zones.
We feel that these improvements would
help clarify when an engine is operating
within a marine NTE zone. Please refer
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
in our on-highway and nonroad NTE
programs; therefore, we are proposing to
adopt them for our marine NTE
standards as well.
We are also proposing for the first
time auxiliary marine engine NTE
standards, effective for both Tier 3 and
Tier 4 auxiliary marine engines. Since
these engines are similar to nonroad
constant speed engines, we propose to
adopt the same NTE standards for
auxiliary marine engines as we have
already finalized for nonroad constant
speed engines. Specifically, these
engines are engines certified to the ISO
8178–1 D2 test cycle, illustrated in 40
CFR § 94.105, Table B–4. Refer to 40CFR
§ 1039.101(e) for our constant speed
nonroad engine NTE standards. Because
we are proposing marine diesel Tier 3
implementation dates in the 2012
timeframe, we request comment as to
whether or not additional lead-time
might be necessary to marinize and
certify NTE-compliant nonroad engines
to the marine diesel Tier 3 standards,
especially since it will be within that
same timeframe that the similar nonroad
Tier 4 engines will be NTE-certified for
nonroad use.
We request comment regarding the
changes we are proposing for the marine
NTE standards.
(4) Emission Control Diagnostics
As described below, we are requesting
comment on (but not proposing) a
requirement that all Tier 4 engines
include simple engine diagnostic system
to alert operators to general emissionrelated malfunctions. (See section
IV.A.(7) for related requirements
involving SCR systems.) We are,
however, proposing special provisions
for locomotives that include emission
related diagnostics. First, we would
require locomotive operators to respond
to malfunction indicators by performing
the required maintenance or inspection.
Second, locomotive manufacturers
would be allowed to repair such
malfunctioning locomotives during inuse compliance testing (they would still
be required to include a description of
the malfunction in the in-use testing
report.). This approach would take
advantage of the unique market
structure with two major manufacturers
and only a few railroads buying nearly
all of the freshly manufactured
locomotives. The proposed provisions
would create incentives for both the
manufacturers and railroads to work
together to develop a diagnostic system
that effectively revealed real emission
malfunctions. Our current regulations
already require that locomotive
operators complete all manufacturerspecified emission-related maintenance
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
and this new requirement would treat
repairs indicated by diagnostic systems
as such emission-related maintenance.
Thus, the railroads would have a strong
incentive to make sure that they only
had to perform this additional
maintenance when real malfunctions
were occurring. On the other hand,
manufacturers would want to have all
emission malfunctions revealed so that
when they test an in-use locomotive
they could repair identified malfunction
before testing if the railroad had not yet
done it.
At this time, we are requesting
comment on a adopting a detailed
regulatory program to require that all
Tier 4 locomotives and marine engines
include a specific engine diagnostic
system. We believe that most of these
engines will be equipped with a basic
diagnostic system for other purposes, so
codifying a uniform convention based
largely on these preexisting systems
could be appropriate. Manufacturers
would generally not be required to
monitor actual emission levels, but
rather would be required to monitor
functionality. Such systems could be
very helpful in maintaining emission
performance during the useful life and
ensuring that malfunctioning marine
catalysts would be replaced. However,
we also believe that it might be more
appropriate to address this issue in a
future rulemaking in the broader context
of all nonroad diesel engines.
(5) Monitoring and Reporting of
Emissions Related Defects
We are proposing to apply the defect
reporting requirements of § 1068.501 to
replace the provisions of subparts E in
parts 92 and 94. This would result in
two significant changes for
manufacturers. First, § 1068.501
obligates manufacturers to tell us when
they learn that emission control systems
are defective and to conduct
investigations under certain
circumstances to determine if an
emission-related defect is present.
Manufacturers must initiate these
investigations when warranty
information, parts shipments, and any
other information which is available
and indicates that a defect investigation
may be fruitful. For this purpose, we
consider defective any part or system
that does not function as originally
designed for the regulatory useful life of
the engine or the scheduled replacement
interval specified in the manufacturer’s
maintenance instructions. The parts and
systems are those covered by the
emissions warranty, and listed in
Appendix I and II of part 1068. As we
noted in previous rulemakings, we
believe the investigation requirement is
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15991
necessary because it will allow both
EPA and the engine manufacturers to
fully understand the significance of any
unusually high rates of warranty claims
and parts replacements for parts or
parameters that may have an impact on
emissions. We believe that as part of its
normal product quality practices,
prudent engine manufacturers already
conduct a thorough investigation when
available data indicate recurring parts
failures. Such data is valuable and
readily available to most manufacturers
and, under this proposal it must be
considered to determine whether or not
there is a possible defect of an emissionrelated part.
The second change is related to
reporting thresholds. Defect reports
submitted in compliance with the
current regulations are based on a single
threshold applicable to engine families
of all production volumes. The single
threshold in the existing regulations
rarely results in reporting of defects in
the smallest engine families covered by
this regulation because a relatively high
proportion of such engines would have
to be known to be defective before
reporting is required under a fixed
threshold scheme. Therefore, under
§ 1068.501, the threshold for reporting
for the smallest engine families would
generally be decreased as compared to
the current requirements. These
thresholds were established during our
rulemaking adopting Tier 4 standards
for nonroad diesel engines.124 Those
engines are substantially similar to the
engines used in the marine and
locomotive sectors, and thus, we believe
that these thresholds will also be
appropriate for these engines.
We are aware that accumulation of
warranty claims and part shipments will
likely include many claims and parts
that do not represent defects, so we are
establishing a relatively high threshold
for triggering the manufacturer’s
responsibility to investigate whether
there is, in fact, a real occurrence of an
emission-related defect. Manufacturers
are not required to count towards the
investigation threshold any replacement
parts they require to be replaced at
specified intervals during the useful life,
as specified in the application for
certification and maintenance
instructions to the owner, because
shipments of such parts clearly do not
represent defects. All such parts would
be excluded from investigation of
potential defects and reporting of
defects, whether or not any specific part
was, in fact, shipped for specified
replacement. This proposal is intended
to require manufacturers to use
124 69
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
FR 38957, June 29, 2004.
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
15992
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
information we would expect them to
keep in the normal course of business.
We believe in most cases manufacturers
would not be required to institute new
programs or activities to monitor
product quality or performance. A
manufacturer that does not keep
warranty or replacement part
information may ask for our approval to
use an alternate defect-reporting
methodology that is at least as effective
in identifying and tracking potential
emissions related defects as the
proposed requirements. However, until
we approve such a request, the
proposed thresholds and procedures
continue to apply.
The thresholds for investigation are
generally ten percent of total production
to date with special limits for small
volume engine families. Please note,
manufacturers would not investigate for
emission related defects until either
warranty claims or parts shipments
separately reach the investigation
threshold. We recognize that a part
shipment may ultimately be associated
with a particular warranty claim in the
manufacturer’s database and, therefore,
warranty claims and parts shipments
would not be aggregated for the purpose
of triggering the investigation threshold
under this proposal.
The second threshold in this proposal
specifies when a manufacturer must
report that there is an emission-related
defect. This threshold involves a smaller
number of engines because each
potential defect would have been
screened to confirm that it is an
emission-related defect. In counting
engines to compare with the defectreporting threshold, the manufacturer
would consider a single engine family
and model year. However, when a
defect report is required, the
manufacturer would report all
occurrences of the same defect in all
engine families and all model years
which use the same part. For engines
subject to this proposal, the threshold
for reporting a defect is two percent of
total production for any single engine
family with special limits for small
volume engine families. It is important
to note that while we regard occurrence
of the defect threshold as proof of the
existence of a reportable defect, we do
not regard that occurrence as conclusive
proof that recall or other action is
merited.
If the number of engines with a
specific defect is found to be less than
the threshold for submitting a defect
report, but information, such as
warranty claims or parts shipment data,
later indicates additional potentially
defective engines, under this proposal
the information must be aggregated for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the purpose of determining whether the
threshold for submitting a defect report
has been met. If a manufacturer has
actual knowledge from any source that
the threshold for submitting a defect
report has been met, a defect report
would have to be submitted even if the
trigger for investigating has not yet been
met. For example, if manufacturers
receive information from their dealers,
technical staff or other field personnel
showing conclusively that there is a
recurring emission-related defect, they
would have to submit a defect report if
the submission threshold is reached.
For both the investigation and
reporting thresholds, § 1068.501
specifies lower thresholds for very large
engines over 560 kW. A defect in these
engines can have a much greater impact
than defects in smaller engines due to
their higher gram per hour emission
rates and the increased likelihood that
such large engines will be used more
continuously.
(6) Rated Power
We are proposing to specify how to
determine maximum engine power in
the regulations for both locomotives and
marine engines. The term ‘‘maximum
engine power’’ would be used for
marine engines instead of previously
undefined terms such as ‘‘rated power’’
or ‘‘power rating’’ to specify the
applicability of the standards. We are
not proposing to define these terms for
our purposes because they already have
commercial meanings. The addition of
this definition is intended to allow for
more objective applicability of the
standards. More specifically, for marine
engines, we are proposing that
maximum engine power would mean
the maximum brake power output on
the nominal power curve for an engine.
Currently, rated power and power
rating are undefined and are specified
by the manufacturer during
certification. This makes the
applicability of the standards
unnecessarily subjective and confusing.
One manufacturer may choose to define
rated power as the maximum measured
power output, while another may define
it as the maximum measured power at
a specific engine speed. Using this
second approach, an engine’s rated
power may be somewhat less than the
true maximum power output of the
engine. Given the importance of engine
power in defining which standards an
engine must meet and when, we believe
that it is critical that a singular power
value be determined objectively
according to a specific regulatory
definition.
For locomotives, the term ‘‘rated
power’’ will continue to be used, but
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would be explicitly defined to be the
brakepower of the engine at notch 8. We
would continue to use the term ‘‘rated
power’’ because this definition is
consistent with the commercial meaning
of the term.
We are also adding a clarification to
the regulations for both locomotives and
marine engines to recognize that actual
engine power varies to some degree
during production. Manufacturers
would specify maximum engine power
(or rated power for locomotives) based
on the design specifications for the
engine (or locomotive). Measured power
from actual production engines would
be allowed to vary from that
specification to some degree based on
normal production variability. The
expected production variability would
be described by the manufacturer in its
application. If the engines that are
actually produced are different from
those described in the application for
certification, the manufacturer would be
required to amend its application.
Finally, we are requesting comment
on whether we need to specify more
precisely how to determine alternator/
generator efficiency for locomotive
testing. In locomotive testing, engine
power is not generally measured
directly, but rather is calculated from
the measured electrical output of the
onboard alternator/generator and the
alternator/generator’s efficiency. Thus,
it is important that the efficiency be
calculated in a consistent manner.
Specifically, we are requesting comment
on whether to require that the efficiency
be determined (and applied) separately
for each notch, and whether a specific
test procedure is necessary.
(7) In-Use Compliance for SCR
Operation
As discussed in section III.D, we are
projecting that manufacturers would use
urea-based SCR systems to comply with
the proposed Tier 4 emission standards.
These systems are very effective at
controlling NOX emissions as long as
the operator continues to supply urea of
acceptable quality. Thus we have
considered concepts put forward by
manufacturers in other mobile source
sectors in dealing with this issue that
include design features to prevent an
engine from being operated without
urea if an operator ignores repeated
warnings and allows the urea level to
run too low. EPA has recently issued a
proposed guidance document for urea
SCR systems discussing the use of such
features on highway diesel vehicles.
Although we request comment on our
adopting requirements for
manufacturers on the design of SCR
systems to ensure use of urea, we
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
believe that the nature of the locomotive
and large commercial marine sectors
supports a different in-use compliance
approach. This approach would focus
on requirements for operators of
locomotives and marine diesel engines
that depend on urea SCR to meet EPA
standards, aided by onboard alarm and
logging mechanisms that engine
manufacturers would be required to
include in their engine designs. Except
in the rare instance that operation
without urea may be necessary, the
regulatory provisions proposed here put
no burden on the end-user beyond
simply filling the urea tank with
appropriate quality urea. Specifically,
we are proposing:
• That it be illegal to operate without
acceptable quality urea when the urea is
needed to keep the SCR system
functioning properly.
• That manufacturers must include
clear and prominent instructions to the
operator on the need for, and proper
steps for, maintaining urea, including a
statement that it is illegal to operate the
engine without urea.
• That manufacturers must include
visible and audible alarms at the
operator’s console to warn of low urea
levels or inadequate urea quality.
• That engines and locomotives must
be designed to track and log, in
nonvolatile computer memory, all
incidents of engine operation with
inadequate urea injection or urea
quality.
• That operators must report to EPA
in writing any incidence of operation
with inadequate urea injection or urea
quality within 30 days of each incident.
• That, when requested, locomotive
and vessel operators must provide EPA
with access to, and assistance in
obtaining information from, the
electronic onboard incident logs.
We understand that in extremely rare
circumstances, such as during a
temporary emergency involving risk of
personal injury, it may be necessary to
operate a vessel or locomotive without
adequate urea. We would intend such
extenuating circumstances to be taken
into account when considering what
penalties or other actions are
appropriate as a result of such
operation. The information from SCR
compliance monitoring systems
described above may also be useful for
state and local air quality agencies and
ports to assist them in any marine
engine compliance programs they
implement. States and localities could
require operators to make this
information available to them in
implementing such programs.
We propose that what constitutes
acceptable urea solution quality be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
specified by the manufacturers in their
maintenance instructions, with the
requirement that the certified emission
control system must meet the emissions
standards with any urea solution within
stated specifications. This will be
facilitated by an industry standard for
urea quality, which we expect will be
generated in the future as these systems
move closer to market. We recognize
that requiring onboard detection of
inadequate urea quality implies the
need for automated sensing of some
characteristic indicator such as urea
concentration or exhaust NOX
concentration. We request comment on
how this can be best managed to
minimize the complexity and cost while
at the same time precluding tampering
through such means as adding water to
the urea tank. We request comment on
additional compliance provisions, such
as mandatory recordkeeping of fuel and
urea consumption for each SCRequipped locomotive or vessel, with
periodic reporting requirements.
We believe these proposed provisions
can be an effective tool in ensuring urea
use for locomotives and large
commercial marine vessels because of
the relatively small number of railroads
and operators of large commercial
vessels in the U.S., especially
considering that the number of SCRequipped locomotives and vessels will
ramp up quite gradually over time. Inuse compliance provisions of the sort
we are proposing for locomotives and
large commercial marine engines would
be much less effective in other mobile
source sectors such as highway vehicles
because successful enforcement
involving millions of vehicle owners
would be extremely difficult. The
incident logging or recordkeeping
requirements could be effective tools for
detecting in-use problems besides nourea or poor-quality urea, such as other
tampering or malmaintenance, or
operation with broken or frozen urea
dosing systems. We request comment on
all aspects of the urea maintenance
issue, including other measures we
should require of manufacturers and
operators of SCR-equipped engines, and
on the definition of a temporary
emergency.
(8) Fuel Labels and Misfueling
In our previous regulation of in-use
locomotive and marine diesel fuel, we
established a 15 ppm sulfur standard at
the refinery gate for locomotive and
marine (LM) diesel fuel beginning June
1, 2012. However, we set the
downstream standard for LM diesel fuel
at 500 ppm sulfur. In this way the LM
diesel fuel pool could remain an outlet
for off-specification distillate product
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15993
and interface/transmix material.
Because refiners cannot intentionally
produce off-specification fuel for
locomotives, most in-use locomotive
and marine diesel fuel will be ULSD
(which contains less than 15 ppm
sulfur). Nevertheless, we expect that
some fuel will be available with sulfur
levels between 15 and 500 ppm.
The advance emission controls that
would be used to comply with many of
the new standards will require the use
of ULSD. Therefore, we are proposing a
requirement that manufacturers notify
each purchaser of a Tier 4 locomotive or
marine engine that it must be fueled
only with the ultra low-sulfur diesel
fuel meeting our regulations. We also
propose to apply this requirement for
locomotives and engines having sulfursensitive technology and certified using
ULSD. We are also proposing that all of
these locomotives and vessels must be
labeled near the refueling inlet to say:
‘‘Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only’’.
These labels would be required to be
affixed or updated any time any engine
on a vessel is replaced after the
proposed program goes into effect.
We are proposing to require the use of
ULSD in locomotives and vessels
labeled as requiring such use, including
all Tier 4 locomotives and marine
engines. More specifically, we are
proposing that use of the wrong fuel for
locomotives or marine engines would be
a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1)
because use of the wrong fuel would
have the effect of disabling the emission
controls. We request comment on the
need for these measures and on
additional ideas for preventing
misfueling.
(9) Emission Data Engine Selection
Some marine manufacturers have
expressed concern over the current
provisions in our regulation for
selection of an emission data engine.
Part 94 specifies that a marine
manufacturer must select for testing
from each engine family the engine
configuration which is expected to be
worst-case for exhaust emission
compliance on in-use engines. Some
manufacturers have interpreted this to
mean that they must test all the ratings
within an engine family to determine
which is the worst-case.
Understandably, this interpretation
could cause production problems for
many manufacturers due to the lead
time needed to test a large volume of
engines. Our view is that the current
provisions do not necessitate testing of
all ratings within an engine family.
Rather, manufacturers are allowed to
base their selection on good engineering
judgment, taking into consideration
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15994
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
address in detail the requirements of 40
CFR 1039.135 and 86.007–35 (including
reserved text) along with the labeling
sections being proposed in this notice
(1033.135 and 1042.135).
(12) Production Line Testing
We propose to continue the existing
production line testing provisions that
apply to manufacturers. Some
manufacturers have suggested that we
should eliminate this requirement on
the basis that very low noncompliance
rates are being detected at a high
expense. We disagree. As we move
toward more stringent emission
standards with this rulemaking, we
anticipate that the margin of compliance
with the standards for these engines is
likely to decrease. Consequently, this
places an even greater significance on
the need to ensure little variation in
production engines from the
certification engine, which is often a
prototype engine. For this reason, it is
important to maintain our production
line testing program. However, the
existing regulations allow
manufacturers to develop alternate
programs that provide equivalent
assurance of compliance on the
production line, and to use such
programs instead of the specified
production line testing program. For
example, given the small sales volumes
associated with marine engines it may
be appropriate to include a production
verification program for marine engines
as part of a manufacturer’s broader
production verification programs for its
nonmarine engines. We believe these
existing provisions already address the
concerns raised to us by the
manufacturers. Nevertheless, we
welcome comments regarding the
appropriateness of the current
provisions.
We are asking for comment on
whether manufacturers should be
allowed to use special procedures for
production line testing of catalystequipped engines. For example, should
we allow the use of a previously
stabilized catalyst instead of an
unstabilized (or green) catalyst? If we
allow this approach, should we require
some additional procedure for ensuring
proper in-use operation of the
production catalysts? Should we allow
manufacturers to demonstrate that the
diagnostic system is capable of verifying
proper function of the emission
controls? Alternatively for locomotives,
should we allow a locomotive selected
for testing to be introduced into service
before testing, provided that it is tested
within the first 10,000 miles of
operation?
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(13) Evaporative Emission Requirements
While nearly all locomotives
currently subject to part 92 are fueled
with diesel fuel, § 92.7 includes
evaporative emission provisions that
would apply for locomotives fueled by
a volatile liquid fuel such as gasoline or
ethanol. These regulations do not
specify test procedures or specific
numerical limits, but rather set a ‘‘good
engineering’’ requirements. We propose
to adopt these same requirements in
part 1033 and request comment on the
need to specify a test procedure and
specific numerical limits.
We are also proposing to adopt
similar requirements for marine engines
and vessels that run on volatile fuels.
We are not aware of any marine engines
currently being produced that would be
subject to these requirements, but
believe that it would be appropriate to
adopt these requirements now, rather
than waiting until such engines are
produced because it would provide
manufacturers certainty. Specifically,
we are proposing that if someone were
to build a marine vessel to use a
compression-ignition engine that runs
on a volatile liquid fuel, the engine
would be subject to the exhaust
standards of part 1042, but the fuel
system would be subject to the
evaporative emission requirements of
the recently proposed part 1045.125
(14) Small Business Provisions
There are a number of small
businesses that would be subject to this
proposal because they are locomotive
manufacturers/remanufacturers,
railroads, marine engine manufacturers,
post-manufacture marinizers, or vessel
builders. We are proposing to largely
continue the existing provisions that
were adopted previously for these small
businesses in the 1998 Locomotive and
Locomotive Engines Rule (April 16,
1998; 63 FR 18977); our 1999
Commercial Marine Diesel Engines Rule
(December 29, 1999; 64 FR 73299); and
our 2002 Recreational Diesel Marine
program (November 8, 2002; 67 FR
68304). These provisions, which are
discussed below, are designed to
minimize regulatory burdens on small
businesses needing added flexibility to
comply with emission standards while
still ensuring the greatest emissions
reductions achievable. (See section
VIII.C of this proposed rule for
discussion of our outreach efforts with
small entities.) We request comment on
whether continuing these provisions is
appropriate. We also request comment
125 Part 1045 is scheduled to be proposed just
before this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
currently used by EPA is same as the
definition used by the Small Business
Administration, which is based on
employment. For line-haul railroads the
threshold is 1,500 or fewer employees,
and for short-haul railroads it is 500 or
fewer employees. Previously we
believed that small railroads were not
likely to remanufacture their
locomotives to ‘‘as new’’ condition in
most cases, so their locomotives would
be generally excluded from the
definition of ‘‘new’’.
We are requesting comment on
whether the current provisions for
railroads qualifying as small businesses
have been effective and appropriate, on
whether they should continue under the
new program, and, if so, on whether the
existing employee thresholds are
appropriate for the purpose of this
rulemaking or whether a new threshold
based on revenue would be appropriate.
Based on the increased efficiencies
associated with railroad operations, we
believe a railroad with 500 or fewer
employees can be viewed as a medium
to large business. We believe a different
approach based on annual revenues may
be more appropriate. For example,
should we limit the category of ‘‘small
railroad’’ to only those railroads that
qualify as Class III railroads and that are
not owned by a larger company? Under
the current classification system, this
would limit the exemption to railroads
having total revenue less than $25
million per year.
We are clarifying in our definition
that intercity passenger or commuter
railroads are not included as railroads
that are small businesses because they
are typically governmental or are large
businesses. Due to the nature of their
business, these entities are largely
funded through tax transfers and other
subsidies. Thus, the only passenger
railroads that could qualify for the small
railroad provisions would be small
passenger railroads related to tourism.
We invite comment on whether any
intercity passenger or commuter
railroads would need this exemption for
locomotives in their existing fleet.
(iii) Small Railroads Excluded From InUse Testing Program
The railroad in-use testing program
would continue to only apply to Class
I freight railroads, and thus, no small
railroads would be subject to this testing
requirement. It is important to note that
most, but not all Class II and III freight
railroads qualify as small businesses.
This provision provides flexibility to all
Class II and III railroads, which includes
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15995
small railroads. All Class I freight
railroads are large businesses. 126
(iv) Hardship Provisions
Section 1068.245 of the existing
regulations in title 40 contains hardship
provisions for engine and equipment
manufacturers, including those that are
small businesses. We are proposing to
apply this section for locomotives as
described below.
Under this unusual circumstances
hardship provision, locomotive
manufacturers may apply for hardship
relief if circumstances outside their
control cause the failure to comply and
if the failure to sell the subject
locomotives would have a major impact
on the company’s solvency. An example
of an unusual circumstance outside a
manufacturer’s control may be an ‘‘Act
of God,’’ a fire at the manufacturing
plant, or the unforeseen shut down of a
supplier with no alternative available.
The terms and time frame of the relief
would depend on the specific
circumstances of the company and the
situation involved. As part of its
application for hardship, a company
would be required to provide a
compliance plan detailing when and
how it would achieve compliance with
the standards.
(b) Marine Sector
There are numerous small businesses
that marinize engines for marine use or
build vessels. These businesses do not
necessarily have the financial resources
or technical expertise to quickly
respond to the requirements contained
in today’s proposed rule. To address
this issue, we propose to continue most
of the existing provisions, as described
below.
(i) Revised Definitions of Small-Volume
Manufacturer and Small-Volume Boat
Builder
We propose to revise the definitions
of small-volume manufacturer (SVM)
and small-volume boat builder to
include worldwide production.
Currently, an SVM is defined as a
manufacturer with annual U.S.-directed
production of fewer than 1,000 engines
(marine and nonmarine engines), and a
small-volume boat builder is defined as
a boat manufacturer with fewer than 500
employees and with annual U.S.directed production of fewer than 100
boats. By proposing to include
worldwide production in these
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15996
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
definitions, we would prevent a
manufacturer or boat builder with a
large worldwide production of engines
or boats, or a large worldwide presence,
from receiving relief from the
requirements of this program. As
discussed above, the provisions that
apply to small-volume manufacturers
and small-volume boat builders as
described below are intended to
minimize the impact of this rule for
those entities that do not have the
financial resources to quickly respond
to requirements in the proposed rule.
(ii) Broader Engine Families and Testing
Relief
Broader engine families: Postmanufacture marinizers (PMMs) and
SVMs would be allowed to continue to
group all commercial Category 1 engines
into one engine family for certification
purposes, all recreational engines into
one engine family, and all Category 2
engines into one family. As with
existing regulations, these entities
would be responsible for certifying
based on the ‘‘worst-case’’ emitting
engine. The advantage of this approach
is that it would minimize certification
testing because the marinizer and SVMs
can use a single engine in the first year
to certify their whole product line. In
addition, marinizers and SVMs could
then carry-over data from year to year
until changing engine designs in a way
that might significantly affect emissions.
We understand that this broad engine
family provision still would require a
certification test and the associated
burden for small-volume manufacturers.
We realize that the test costs are spread
over low sales volumes, and we
recognize that it may be difficult to
determine the worst-case emitter
without additional testing. We would
require testing because we need a
reliable, test-based technical basis to
issue a certificate for these engines.
However, manufacturers would be able
to use carryover to spread costs over
multiple years of production.
Production-line and deterioration
testing: In addition, SVMs producing
engines less than or equal to 800 hp
(600 kW) would be exempted from
production-line and deterioration
testing for the proposed Tier 3
standards. We would assign a
deterioration factor for use in
calculating end-of-useful life emission
factors for certification. This approach
would minimize compliance testing
since production-line and deterioration
testing would be more extensive than a
single certification test. The Tier 3
standards proposed for these engines are
expected to be engine-out standards and
would not require the use of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
aftertreatment—similar to the existing
Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. The Tier 4
standards proposed for engines greater
than 800 hp (600 kW) are expected to
require aftertreatment emission-control
devices. Currently, we are not aware of
any SVMs that produce engines greater
than 800 hp (600 kW), except for one
marinizer that plans to discontinue their
production in the near future.127 As a
proposed revision to the existing
provisions, we would not apply these
production-line and deterioration
testing exemptions to SVMs that begin
producing these larger engines in the
future due to the sophistication of
manufacturers that produce engines
with aftertreatment technology. These
manufacturers would have the resources
to conduct both the design and
development work for the aftertreatment
emission-control technology, along with
production-line and deterioration
testing. We invite comments on this
proposed revision.
(iii) Delayed Standards
One-year delay: Post-manufacture
marinizers generally depend on engine
manufacturers producing base engines
for marinizing. This can delay the
certification of the marinized engines.
There may be situations in which,
despite its best efforts, a marinizer
cannot meet the implementation dates,
even with the provisions described in
this section. Such a situation may occur
if an engine supplier without a major
business interest in a marinizer were to
change or drop an engine model very
late in the implementation process, or
was not able to supply the marinizer
with an engine in sufficient time for the
marinizer to recertify the engine. Based
on this concern, we propose to allow a
one-year delay in the implementation
dates of the Tier 3 standards for postmanufacture marinizers qualifying as
small businesses (the definition of small
business used by EPA for these
provisions for manufacturers of new
marine diesel engines—or other engine
equipment manufacturing—is 1,000 or
fewer employees) and producing
engines less than or equal to 800 hp
(600 kW). As described earlier, the Tier
4 standards proposed for engines greater
than 800 hp (600 kW) are expected to
require aftertreatment emission-control
devices. We would not apply this oneyear delay to small PMMs that begin
marinizing these larger engines in the
future due to the sophistication of
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
proposed for engines greater than 800
hp (600 kW) are expected to require
aftertreatment emission-control devices.
For the recreational marine sector, most
of the engines are less than or equal to
800 hp (kW). To meet the Tier 3
standards, the design and development
effort is expected to be for recalibration
work, which is much less than the work
for Tier 4 standards. Also, Tier 3
engines are expected to require far less
in terms of new hardware, and in fact,
are expected to only require upgrades to
existing hardware (i.e., new fuel
systems). In addition, manufacturers
have experience with engine-out
standards from the existing Tier 1 and
Tier 2 standards, and thus, they have
learned how to comply with such
standards. Thus, small-volume
manufacturers of recreational marine
diesel engines do not need more time to
meet the new standards. For small
PMMs of recreational marine diesel
engines, the one-year delay described
earlier would provide enough time for
these entities to meet the proposed
standards. We invite comment on
discontinuing this provision for a 5-year
delay.
(iv) Engine Dressing Exemption
Marine engine dressers would
continue to be exempted from
certification and compliance
requirements. Many marine diesel
engine manufacturers take a new, landbased engine and modify it for
installation on a marine vessel. Some of
the companies that modify an engine for
installation on a vessel make no changes
that might affect emissions. Instead, the
modifications may consist of adding
mounting hardware and a generator or
reduction gears for propulsion. It can
also involve installing a new marine
cooling system that meets original
manufacturer specifications and
duplicates the cooling characteristics of
the land-based engine, but with a
different cooling medium (such as sea
water). In many ways, these
manufacturers are similar to nonroad
equipment manufacturers that purchase
certified land-based nonroad engines to
make auxiliary engines. This simplified
approach of producing an engine can
more accurately be described as
dressing an engine for a particular
application. Because the modified landbased engines are subsequently used on
a marine vessel, however, these
modified engines would be considered
marine diesel engines, which would
then fall under these requirements.
To clarify the responsibilities of
engine dressers under this proposed
rule, while we would continue to
consider them to be manufacturers of a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
marine diesel engine, they would not be
required to obtain a certificate of
conformity (as long as they ensure that
the original label remains on the engine
and report annually to EPA that the
engine models that are exempt pursuant
to this provision). This would be an
extension of § 94.907 of the existing
regulations. For further details of engine
dressers responsibilities see § 1042.605
of the proposed regulations.
(v) Vessel Builder Provisions
For recreational marine engines, the
existing regulations (2002 Recreational
Diesel Marine program; November 8,
2002, 67 FR 68304) allow manufacturers
with a written request from a smallvolume boat builder to produce a
limited number of uncertified engines
(over a five-year period)—an amount
equal to 80-percent of the vessel
manufacturer’s sales for one year. For
boat builders with very small
production volumes, this 80-percent
allowance could be exceeded, as long as
sales do not exceed 10 engines in any
one year nor 20 total engines over five
years and applies only to engines less
than or equal to 2.5 liters per cylinder.
However, we do not plan to continue
this provision. The vast majority of the
recreational marine engines would be
subject only to the Tier 3 engine-out
standards that are not expected to
change the physical characteristics of
engines (Tier 3 standards would not
result in a larger engine or otherwise
require any more space within a vessel).
This is similar to the Tier 2 engine-out
standards, and thus, we believe this
provision is not necessary anymore as
boat builders are not expected to need
to redesign engine compartments of
boats, for engines meeting Tier 3
standards. We invite comment on
discontinuing this provision for boat
builders.
(vi) Hardship Provisions
Sections 1068.245, 1068.250 and
1068.255 of the existing regulations in
title 40 contain hardship provisions for
engine and equipment manufacturers,
including those that are small
businesses. We are proposing to apply
these sections for marine applications
which would effectively continue
existing hardship provisions as
described below.
PMMs and SVMs: We are proposing to
continue two existing hardship
provisions for PMMs and SVMs. They
may apply for this relief on an annual
basis. First, under an economic
hardship provision, PMMs and SVMs
may petition us for additional lead time
to comply with the standards. They
must show that they have taken all
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15997
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
15998
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(15) Alternate Tier 4 NOX+HC Standards
We are proposing new Tier 4 NOX and
HC standards for locomotives and
marine engines, and proposing to
continue our existing emission
averaging programs. However, the
existing averaging programs do not
allow manufacturers to show
compliance with HC standards using
averaging. Because we are concerned
that this could potentially limit the
benefits of our averaging program as a
phase-in tool for manufacturers, we are
proposing an alternate NOX+HC
standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr that could be
used as part of the averaging
program.128 Manufacturers that were
unable to comply with the Tier 4 HC
standard would be allowed to certify to
a NOX+HC FEL, and use emission
credits to show compliance with the
128 For model year 2015 and 2016 the alternate
standard would b3 5.5 g/bhp-hr NOX+HC. In all
cases the alternate standard would be equal to the
otherwise applicable NOX standard.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
alternate standard instead of the
otherwise applicable NOX and HC
standards. For example, a manufacturer
may choose to use banked emission
credits to gradually phase in its Tier 4
1200 kW marine engines by producing
a mix of Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines
during the early part of 2014. We are
proposing that NOX+HC credits and
NOX credits could be averaged together
without discount.
(16) Other Issues
We are also proposing other minor
changes to the compliance program. For
example, we are proposing that engine
manufacturers be required to provide
installation instructions to vessel
manufacturers and kit installers to
ensure that engine cooling systems,
aftertreatment exhaust emission
controls, and other emission controls
are properly installed. Proper
installation of these systems is critical to
the emission performance of the
equipment. Vessel manufacturers and
kit installers would be required to
follow the instructions to avoid
improper installation that could render
emission controls inoperative. Improper
installation would subject them to
penalties equivalent to those for
tampering with the emission controls.
We are also clarifying the general
requirement that no emission controls
for engines subject to this final rule may
cause or contribute to an unreasonable
risk to public health, welfare, or safety,
especially with respect to noxious or
toxic emissions that may increase as a
result of emission-control technologies.
The proposed regulatory language,
which addresses the same general
concept as the existing §§ 92.205 and
94.205, implements sections 202(a)(4)
and 206(a)(3) of the Act and clarifies
that the purpose of this requirement is
to prevent control technologies that
would cause unreasonable risks, rather
than to prevent trace emissions of any
noxious compounds. This requirement
prevents the use of emission-control
technologies that produce pollutants for
which we have not set emission
standards, but nevertheless pose a risk
to the public.
B. Compliance Issues Specific to
Locomotives
(1) Refurbished Locomotives
Section 213(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act
directs EPA to establish emission
standards for ‘‘new locomotives and
new engines used in locomotives.’’ In
the previous rulemaking, we defined
‘‘new locomotive’’ to mean a freshly
manufactured or remanufactured
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
locomotive.129 We defined
‘‘remanufacture’’ of a locomotive as a
process in which all of the power
assemblies of a locomotive engine are
replaced with freshly manufactured
(containing no previously used parts) or
reconditioned power assemblies. In
cases where all of the power assemblies
are not replaced at a single time, a
locomotive is considered to be
‘‘remanufactured’’ (and therefore
‘‘new’’) if all of the power assemblies
from the previously new engine had
been replaced within a five-year period.
The proposed regulations clarify the
definition of ‘‘freshly manufactured
locomotive’’ when an existing
locomotive is substantially refurbished
including the replacement of the old
engine with a freshly manufactured
engine. The existing definition in
§ 92.12 states that freshly manufactured
locomotives are locomotives that do not
contain more than 25 percent (by value)
previously used parts. We allowed
freshly manufactured locomotives to
contain up to 25 percent used parts
because of the current industry practice
of using various combinations of used
and unused parts. This 25-percent value
applies to the dollar value of the parts
being used rather than the number
because it more properly weights the
significance of the various used and
unused components. We chose 25
percent as the cutoff because setting a
very low cutoff point would have
allowed manufacturers to circumvent
the more stringent standards for freshly
manufactured locomotives by including
a few used parts during the final
assembly. On the other hand, setting a
very high cutoff point could have
required remanufacturers to meet
standards applicable to freshly
manufactured locomotives, but such
standards may not have been feasible
given the technical limitations of the
existing chassis.
We are proposing to add a definition
of ‘‘refurbish’’ which would mean the
act of modifying an existing locomotive
such that the resulting locomotive
contains less than 50 percent (by value)
previously used parts, (but more than 25
percent). We believe that where an
existing locomotive is improved to this
degree, it is appropriate to consider it
separately from locomotives that are
simply remanufactured in a
conventional sense. As described in
section IV.B.(3) we are proposing to set
the credit proration factor for
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
refurbished switch locomotives equal to
the proration factor for 20-year old
switchers (0.60).
We are requesting comment on
whether refurbished locomotives should
be required to meet more stringent
standards than locomotives that are
simply remanufactured. For example,
would it be feasible and cost-effective to
require refurbished switch locomotives
to meet latest applicable emission
standards (i.e., the highest tier of
standards that is applicable to freshly
manufactured switch locomotives at the
time of the remanufacture) rather than
the old standards? If not, should they be
required to at least meet the Tier 1 or
Tier 2 standards?
We recognize that the issues are
somewhat different for refurbished linehaul locomotives because of different
design constraints that are not present
with switchers. If we required
refurbished line-haul locomotives to
meet very stringent standards, should
we allow railroads to refurbish a limited
number of line-haul locomotives to less
stringent standards? For example, if we
required refurbished line-haul
locomotives to meet the Tier 3
standards, should we allow railroads to
refurbish up to 10 line-haul locomotives
per year to the Tier 2 standards.
(2) Averaging, Banking and Trading
We are proposing to continue the
existing averaging banking and trading
provisions for locomotives. In general,
we will continue the historical practice
of capping family emission limits (FELs)
at the level of the previously applicable
standard. However, we are requesting
comment on whether we should set
lower caps for Tier 4 locomotives
similar to what was done for highway
engines.130 We recognize that it would
be appropriate to allow the use of
emission credits to smooth the
transition from Tier 3 to Tier 4, and this
requires the FELs to be set at the level
of the Tier 3 standards.
In order to ensure that the ABT
program is not used to delay the
implementation of the Tier 4
technology, we are also proposing to
carry over an averaging restriction that
was adopted for Tier 2 locomotives in
the previous locomotive rulemaking. We
would restrict to number of Tier 4
locomotives that could be certified
using credits to no more than 50 percent
of a manufacturer’s annual production.
As was true for the earlier restriction,
this would be intended to ensure that
progress is made toward compliance
with the advanced technology expected
to be needed to meet the Tier 4
130 66
FR 5109–5111, January 18, 2001.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
standards. This would encourage
manufacturers to make every effort
toward meeting the Tier 4 standards,
while allowing some use of banked
credits to provide needed lead time in
implementing the Tier 4 standards by
2015, allowing them to appropriately
focus research and development funds.
We request comment on the need for
this or other restriction on the
application of credits to Tier 4
locomotives.
We are proposing to prohibit the
carryover of PM credits generated from
Tier 0 or Tier 1 locomotives under part
92. The Tier 0 and Tier 1 PM standards
under part 92 were set above the average
baseline level to act as caps on PM
emissions rather than technologyforcing standards. Thus, credits
generated against these standards can be
considered to be windfall credits. We
believe that allowing the carryover of
such PM credits would not be
appropriate. We would allow credits
generated from Tier 2 locomotives to be
used under part 1033. We request
comment on this prohibition as well as
an alternative approach in which part
92 PM credits are discounted
significantly rather than prohibited
completely.
We are also proposing to update the
proration factors for credits generated or
used by remanufactured locomotives.
The updated proration factors better
reflect the difference in service time for
line-haul and switch locomotives. The
ABT program is based on credit
calculations that assume as a default
that a locomotive will remain at a single
FEL for its full service life (from the
point it is originally manufactured until
it is scrapped). However, when we
established the existing standards, we
recognized that technology will
continue to evolve and that locomotive
owners may wish to upgrade their
locomotives to cleaner technology and
certify the locomotive to a lower FEL at
a subsequent remanufacture. We
established proration factors based on
the age of the locomotive to make
calculated credits for remanufactured
locomotives consistent with credits for
freshly manufactured locomotive in
terms of lifetime emissions. The
proposed proration factors are shown in
§ 1033.705 of the proposed regulations.
These would replace the existing
proration factors of § 92.305. For
example, using the proposed proration
factors, a 15 year old line-haul
locomotive certified to a new FEL that
was 1.00 g/bhp-hr below the applicable
standard would generate the same
amount of credit as a freshly
manufactured locomotive that was
certified to an FEL that was 0.43 g/bhp-
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15999
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 fleetaverage basis. Would this be a better
approach for ensuring that the industry
applies low emission technology in the
most equitable and cost effective
manner? Would it reduce the potential
for market disruptions? Would it have
any other beneficial or adverse
consequences not discussed here?
Finally, we are requesting comment
on how to treat credits generated and
used by Tier 3 and later locomotives.
Under the current part 92 ABT program,
credits are segregated based on the cycle
over which they are generated but not
by how the locomotive is intended to be
used (switch, line-haul, passenger, etc.).
Line-haul locomotives can generate
credits for use by switch locomotives,
and vice versa, because both
locomotives are subject to the same
standards. However, for the Tier 3 and
Tier 4 programs, switch and line-haul
locomotives would be subject to
different standards with emissions
generally measured only for one test
cycle. We are proposing to allow credits
generated by Tier 3 or later switch
locomotives over the switch cycle to be
used by line-haul locomotives to show
compliance with line-haul cycle
standards. We are requesting comment
on (but not proposing) allowing such
cross-cycle use of line-haul credits (or
switch credits generated by line-haul
locomotives) by Tier 3 or later switch
locomotives.
To make this approach work, we are
also proposing a special calculation
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16000
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
method where the credit using
locomotive is subject to standards over
only one duty cycle while the credit
generating locomotive is subject to
standards over both duty cycles (and
can thus generate credits over both
cycles). In such cases, we would require
the use of credits under both cycles. For
example, for a Tier 4 line-haul engine
family needing 1.0 megagrams of NOX
credits to comply with the line-haul
emission standard, the manufacturer
would have to use 1.0 megagrams of
line-haul NOX credits and 1.0
megagrams of switch NOX credits if the
line-haul credits were generated by a
locomotive subject to standards over
both cycles.
Commenters supporting cross-cycle
credit averaging should also address
uncertainty due to cycle differences and
the different ways in which switch and
line-haul locomotives are likely to be
used. For example, the two cycles are
very different and reflect average duty
cycles for the two major types of
operation. Moreover, because switch
locomotive generally spend more time
in low-power operation than line-haul
locomotives, they tend to last much
longer in terms of years. This means that
the full benefits of emission reductions
from switch locomotives will likely
occur further into the future than will
the benefits of emission reductions from
line-haul locomotives. Should such
credits be adjusted to account for this
difference? If so, how? Are there other
factors that would warrant applying
some adjustment to the credits to make
them more equivalent to one another?
(3) Switch Credit Calculation
We are proposing to correct the
existing ABT program to more
appropriately give credits to railroads
for upgrading old switchers to use clean
engines, rather than to continue using
the old high emission engines
indefinitely. As with the existing
program, credits would be calculated
from the difference between the
emissions of the old switcher and the
emissions of the new replacement
switcher, adjusted to account for the
projected time the old switcher would
have otherwise remained in service. We
are also requesting comment on whether
other changes need to be made to the
switch credit calculation.
The proposed correction would affect
the proration factor that is used in the
credit calculation to account for the
locomotive’s emissions projected for the
remainder of its service life, relative to
a freshly manufactured locomotive.
More specifically, the correction we are
proposing would create a floor for the
credit proration factor for refurbished
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 90day grace period in which they could
remanufacture their locomotives to the
previously applicable standards. This
would allow them to use up inventory
of older parts. It would also allow
sufficient time to find out about the
availability of kits and to make
appropriate plans for compliance.
We are also requesting comment on
whether this requirement will cause any
disadvantage to non-OEM
remanufacturers who may be unable to
develop remanufacture systems in time.
(5) Recertification Without Testing
Once manufacturers have certified an
engine family, we have historically
allowed them to obtain certificates for
subsequent model years using the same
test data if the engines remain
unchanged from the previous model
year. We refer to this type of
certification as ‘‘carryover.’’ We are
proposing to continue this allowance.
We are also requesting comment on
extending this allowance to owner/
operators. Specifically, we request
comment on adding the following
paragraph to the end of the proposed
§ 1033.240:
An owner/operator remanufacturing its
locomotives to be identical to its previously
certified configuration may certify by design
without new emission test data. To do this,
submit the application for certification
described in § 1033.205, but instead of
including test data, include a description of
how you will ensure that your locomotives
will be identical in all material respects to
their previously certified condition. You
have all of the liabilities and responsibilities
of the certificate holder for locomotives you
certify under this paragraph.
Several railroads have expressed
concern that once they purchase a
compliant locomotive, they are at the
mercy of the original manufacturer at
the time of remanufacture if there are no
other certified kits available for that
model. The regulatory provision shown
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16001
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
above would make it somewhat simpler
for a railroad to obtain the certificate
because it would eliminate the need to
certification testing.
(6) Railroad Testing
Section 92.1003 requires Class I
freight railroads to annually test a small
sample of their locomotives. We are
proposing to adopt the same
requirements in § 1033.810. We are
requesting comments on whether this
program should be changed. In
particular, we request suggestions to
better specify how a railroad selects
which locomotives to test, which has
been a source of some confusion in
recent years. Commenters suggesting
changes should also address when such
changes should take effect.
(7) Test Conditions and Corrections
In our previous rule, we established
test conditions that are representative of
in-use conditions. Specifically, we
required that locomotives comply with
emission standards when tested at
temperatures from 45 °F to 105 °F and
at both sea level and altitude conditions
up to about 4,000 feet above sea level.
One of the reasons we established such
a broad range was to allow outdoor
testing of locomotives. While we only
required that locomotives comply with
emission standards when tested at
altitudes up to 4,000 feet for purposes
of certification and in-use liability, we
also required manufacturers to submit
evidence with their certification
applications, in the form of an
engineering analysis, that shows that
their locomotives were designed to
comply with emission standards at
altitudes up to 7,000 feet. We included
correction factors that are used to
account for the effects of ambient
temperature and humidity on NOX
emission rates.
We are proposing to change the lower
limit for testing to 60 °F and eliminate
the correction for the effects of ambient
temperature. In implementing the
current regulations, we have found that
the broad temperature range with
correction, which was established to
make testing more practical, was not
workable. Given the uncertainty with
the existing correction, manufacturers
have generally tried to test in the
narrower range being proposed today.
However, under the proposed
regulations, we would allow
manufacturers to test at lower
temperatures, but would require them to
develop correction factors specific to
their locomotive designs. We would
continue the other existing test
condition provisions in the proposed
regulations.
(8) Duty Cycles
We are not proposing any changes to
the weighting factors for the locomotive
duty cycles. However, we are requesting
comment on whether such changes
would be appropriate in light of the
proposed idle reduction requirements.
The existing regulations (§ 92.132(a)(4))
specifies an alternate calculation for
locomotive equipped with idle
shutdown features. Specifically, the
regulatory language states:
For locomotives equipped with features
that shut the engine off after prolonged
periods of idle, the measured mass emission
rate Mi1 (and Mi1a as applicable) shall be
multiplied by a factor equal to one minus the
estimated fraction reduction in idling time
that will result in use from the shutdown
feature. Application of this adjustment is
subject to the Administrator’s approval.
This provision allows a manufacturer
to appropriately account for the
inclusion of idle reduction features as
part of its emission control system.
There are three primary reasons why we
are not proposing to change the
calculation procedures with respect to
the proposed idle requirements. First,
different shutdown systems will achieve
different levels of idle reduction in use.
Thus, no single adjustment to the cycle
would appropriately reflect the range of
reductions that will be achieved.
Second, the existing calculation
provides an incentive for manufacturers
to design shutdown systems that will
achieve in the greatest degree of idle
reduction that is practical. Finally, our
feasibility analysis is based in part on
the emission reductions achievable
relative to the existing standards. Since
some manufacturers already rely on the
calculated emission reductions from
shutdown features incorporated into
many of their locomotive designs, our
feasibility is based in part on allowing
such calculations.
While we are proposing to continue
this approach, we are requesting
comment on whether we should be
more specific in our regulations about
what level of adjustment is appropriate.
For example, should we specify that
idle emission rates for locomotives
meeting our proposed minimum
shutdown requirements in § 1033.115 be
reduced by 20 percent, unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that greater
idle reduction will be achieved?
We also recognize that the potential
exists for locomotives to include
additional power notches, or even
continuously variable throttles and that
the standard FTP sequence for such
locomotives would result in an
emissions measurement that does not
accurately reflect their in-use emissions
performance. Moreover, some
locomotives may not have all of the
specified notches, making it impossible
to test them over the full test. Under the
existing regulations, we handle such
locomotives under our discretion to
allow alternate calculations (40 CFR
92.132(e)). We are requesting comment
on whether we need detailed
regulations to specify duty cycles for
such locomotives. In general, for
locomotives missing notches, we believe
the existing duty cycle weighting factors
should be reweighted without the
missing notches. For locomotives
without notches or more than 8 power
notches, commenters should consider
the following information provided to
us by manufacturers for the previous
rulemaking that shows that typical
notch power levels expressed as a
percentage of the rated power of the
engine as shown in Table IV–below.
TABLE IV–1.—TYPICAL LOCOMOTIVE NOTCH POWER LEVELS
Notch
1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Percent of Rated Power ................................................................
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
2
4.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
11.5
23.5
35.0
48.5
64.0
85.0
100.0
without certifying under the locomotive
program. We placed limits on the
number of nonroad engines that can be
used for four primary reasons:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
• The locomotive program is
uniquely tailored to the railroad
industry to ensure emission reductions
for actual locomotive operation over 30–
60 year service lives.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16002
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
• At sufficiently high sales levels, the
per locomotive cost of certifying under
part 92 become less significant.
• It is somewhat inequitable to allow
nonroad engine manufacturers the
option of certifying the engines in
whichever program they believe to be
more advantageous to them, considering
factors such as compliance testing
requirements.
• States and localities have much less
ability to regulate locomotives than
other engine types, and thus EPA has an
obligation to monitor locomotive
performance more closely.
We believe that these reasons remain
valid and are proposing to continue this
type of allowance. However, we are
proposing some changes to these
procedures. In general, manufacturers
have not taken advantage of these
existing provisions. In some cases, this
was because the manufacturer wanted to
produce more locomotives than allowed
under the exemption. However, in most
cases, it was because the customer
wanted a full locomotive certification
with the longer useful life and
additional compliance assurances. We
are proposing new separate approaches
for the long term (§ 1033.625) and the
short term (§ 1033.150), each of which
addresses at least one of these issues.
For the long term, we are proposing
to replace the existing allowance to rely
on part 89 certificates with a designcertification program that would make
the locomotives subject to the
locomotive standards in-use, but not
require new testing to demonstrate
compliance at certification. Specifically,
this program would allow switch
manufacturers using nonroad engines to
introduce up to 15 locomotives of a new
model prior to completing the
traditional certification requirements.
While the manufacturer would be able
to certify without new testing, the
locomotives have locomotive
certificates. Thus, purchasers would
have the compliance assurances that
they seem to desire.
The short term program is more
flexible and would not require that the
locomotives comply with the switch
cycle standards, and instead the engines
would be subject to the part 1039
standards. The manufacturer would be
required to use good engineering
judgment to ensure that the engines’
emission controls will function properly
when installed in a locomotive. Given
the relative levels of the part 1039
standards and those being proposed in
1033, we do believe there is little
environmental risk with this short-term
allowance, and thus propose to not have
any limits of the sales of such
locomotives. Nevertheless, we are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16003
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
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
small miscalculation of the expected
deterioration rates.
To put these levels in context, the
difference between the NOX standard
with and without the end of life add-on
is equivalent to the end of life catalyst
efficiency being about 20 percent lower
than expected. Our feasibility analysis
projects that the SCR catalyst would
need to be approximately 80 percent
efficient over the locomotive duty cycle
at the end of the locomotive’s useful life
to comply with the 1.3 g/bhp-hr
standard. However, if this efficiency
dropped to 60 percent, the cycleweighted emissions would essentially
double, increasing by up to 1.3 g/bhphr.
TABLE IV–2.—PROPOSED IN-USE ADD-ONS
[g/bhp-hr]
NOX
(2017–2019)
For useful life fractions
<50% UL ..................................................................................................................................................................
50%–75% UL ...........................................................................................................................................................
>75% UL ..................................................................................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
131 70
FR 40458, July 13, 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
that they generally do not (and cannot)
have the data from in-use engines that
is needed to justify an alternate useful
life prior to obtaining certification and
putting engines into service. The
amended regulations allow
manufacturers to use information
equivalent to in-use data, such as data
from research engines or similar engine
models that are already in production.
Additionally, the demonstration
currently required must include
recommended overhaul intervals, any
mechanical warranties offered for the
engine or its components, and any
relevant customer design specifications.
Given the above amendments, we do not
feel that a sweeping change to our
useful life scheme is warranted at this
time. We would be willing to consider
modifying our scheme in the future
should manufacturers provide data for
characteristics used to design engine
overhaul intervals (e.g., compression
loss, oil consumption increase, engine
component wear, etc.) in specific
cylinder size and power density
categories.
(2) Replacement Engines
Under the provisions of our current
marine diesel engine program, when an
engine on an existing vessel is replaced
with a new engine, that new engine
must be certified to the standards in
existence when the vessel is repowered.
These repower requirements apply to
both propulsion and auxiliary engines.
We are proposing to apply this approach
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.7
1.0
1.3
PM
(2015–2017)
0.01
under the new regulations rather than
the provisions of § 1068.240.
We provided an exemption in 40 CFR
94.1103(b)(3) which allows a vessel
owner to replace an existing engine with
a new uncertified engine or a new
engine certified to an earlier standard
engine in certain cases. This is only
allowed, however, if it can be
demonstrated that no new engine that is
certified to the emission limits in effect
at that time is produced by any
manufacturer with the appropriate
physical or performance characteristics
needed to repower the vessel. In other
words, if a new certified engine cannot
be used, an engine manufacturer may
produce a new replacement engine that
does not meet all of the requirements in
effect at that time. For example, if a
vessel has twin Tier 1 propulsion
engines and it becomes necessary to
replace one of them after the Tier 3
standards go into effect, the vessel
owner can request approval for an
engine manufacture to produce a new
Tier 1 engine if it can be demonstrated
that the vessel would not function
properly if the engines are not
identically matched.
There are certain conditions for this
exemption. The replacement engine
must meet standards at least as stringent
as those of the original engine. So, for
example, if the original engine is a preTier 1 engine, then the replacement
engine need not meet any emission
limits. If the old engine was a Tier 1
engine, the new engine must meet at
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16004
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
additional requirements for it. First, the
vessel may not be used for general
commercial purposes. The one
exception to this is that the exemption
allows a fisherman to use the vessel for
his or her own commercial fishing.
Second, the exemption would be
limited to one such vessel over a tenyear period and would not allow
exempt engines to be sold for at least
five years. We believe these restrictions
would not be unreasonable for a true
hobby builder or comparable fisherman.
Moreover, we would require that the
vessel generally be built from
unassembled components, rather than
simply completing assembly of a vessel
that is otherwise similar to one that will
be certified to meet emission standards.
The person also must be building the
vessel him- or herself, and not simply
ordering parts for someone else to
assemble. Finally, the vessel must be a
vessel that is not classed or subject to
Coast Guard inspections or surveys.
We are requesting comment on all
aspects of this proposed exemption. We
also request comment on whether this
application of the exemption should be
limited to fishing vessels under a certain
length (e.g., 36 feet), to ensure that it is
limited to small operators, and/or
whether it should be limited to vessels
that are engaged only in seasonal fishing
and not used year-round.
(4) Gas Turbine Engines
While gas turbine engines 132 are used
extensively in naval ships, they are not
used very often in commercial ships.
Because of this and because we do not
currently have sufficient information,
we are not proposing to regulate marine
gas turbines in this rulemaking.
Nevertheless, we believe that gas
turbines could likely meet the proposed
standards (or similar standards) since
they generally have lower emissions
than diesel engines and will reconsider
gas turbines in a future rulemaking. We
are requesting that commenters familiar
with gas turbines provide to us any
emissions information that is available.
We would also welcome comments on
whether it would be appropriate to
regulate turbines and diesels together.
Commenters supporting the regulation
of turbines should also address whether
any special provisions would be needed
for the testing and certification of
turbines.
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(5) Residual Fuel Engines
Our Category 1 and Category 2 marine
diesel engine standards, both the
existing emission limits (Tiers 1 and 2)
and the proposed emission limits (Tiers
3 and 4) apply to all newly built marine
diesel engines regardless of the fuel they
are designed to use. In the vast majority
of cases, this fuel would be distillate
diesel fuel similar to diesel fuel used in
highway or land-based nonroad
applications. However, there are a small
number of Category 1 and Category 2
auxiliary engines that are designed to
use residual fuel. Residual fuel is a byproduct of distilling crude oil to
produce lighter petroleum products
such as gasoline, DM-grade diesel fuel
(also called ‘‘distillate diesel’’ which is
used in on-highway, land-based
nonoroad, and marine diesel engines),
and kerosene. Residual fuel possesses a
high viscosity and density, which makes
it harder to handle (usage requires
special equipment such as heaters,
centrifuges, and purifiers). It typically
has a high ash, nitrogen, and sulfur
content compared to distillate diesel
fuels. It is not produced to a set of
narrow specifications, and so fuel
parameters can be highly variable. All of
these characteristics of residual fuel
make it difficult to handle, and it is
typically used only in Category 3
engines on ocean-going vessels or in
very large (above 30 l/cylinder)
generators used in land-based power
plants. Residual fuel is traditionally not
used in Category 1 or Category 2
propulsion engines because of the fuel
handling equipment required onboard
and because it can affect engine
responsiveness. However, it may be
used in Category 1 or Category 2
auxiliary engines used on ocean-going
vessels, to simplify the fuel
requirements for the vessel (both
propulsion and auxiliary engines would
operate on the same fuel).
In contrast to the federal program, the
engine testing and certification
provision in Annex VI allow
manufacturers to test engines on
distillate fuel even if they are intended
to operate on residual fuel. This
approach was adopted because it was
thought that the use of residual fuel
would not affect NOX, and the Annex VI
standards are NOX only. At the same
time, however, the NOX Technical Code
allows a ten percent allowance for inuse testing on residual fuel, to
accommodate any marginal impact on
NOX and also to reflect the fact that the
engine would be adjusted differently to
operate on residual fuel.
The Annex VI approach was rejected
for our national Category 1 and Category
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
2 engines standards. We noted in our
1999 FRM that residual fuel is
sufficiently different from distillate as to
be an alternative fuel. We also noted
that changes to an engine to make it
operable on residual fuel could
constitute a violation of the tampering
prohibition in § 94.1103(a)(3). More
importantly, however, all of our
emission control programs are
predicated on an engine meeting the
emission standards in use. We have a
variety of provisions that help ensure
this outcome, including specifying the
useful life of an engine, specification of
an emission deterioration factor,
durability testing, and not-to-exceed
zone requirements to ensure compliance
over the range of operations an engine
is likely to see in-use. These provisions
are necessary to ensure that the
emission reductions we expect from the
emission limits actually occur. This
would not be the case with the Annex
VI approach. While an engine may pass
the certification requirements using
distillate fuel, it is unclear what
emission reductions would actually
occur from engines using residual fuel.
So, for example, while the Annex VI
NOX limits were expected to achieve a
30 percent reduction from uncontrolled
levels for marine diesel engines, we
estimated the actual reduction for
residual fuel Category 3 engines to be
closer to 20 percent (see 68 FR 9777,
February 28, 2003).
For these reasons, our existing
requirements for engines less than 30 l/
cyl displacement require certification
that specifies that if a Category 1 or
Category 2 engine is designed to be
capable of using a fuel other than or in
addition to distillate fuel (e.g., natural
gas, methanol, or nondistillate diesel, or
a mixed fuel), exhaust emission testing
must be performed using a
commercially available fuel of that type,
with fuel specifications approved by us
(40 CFR 94.108(b)(1)).
In recent months, shipbuilders have
notified us that they are unable to obtain
certified Category 1 or Category 2
residual fuel auxiliary engines for
installation on newly built vessels with
Category 3 propulsion engines. The
standard building practice for these
vessels is to install auxiliary engines
that use the same fuel, residual fuel, as
the propulsion engine. This approach is
common throughout the industry
because it simplifies the fuel handling
systems for the vessel (only one grade of
fuel is required for the vessel’s primary
power plants, although there may be
one or two smaller distillate fuel
auxiliary engines for emergency
purposes) and it reduces the costs of
operating the vessel (residual fuel is less
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16005
expensive than distillate fuel).
Shipbuilders indicated they have been
unable to find Category 1 or Category 2
auxiliary engines certified to the Tier 2
standards on residual fuel. Engine
manufacturers have indicated that they
have not certified these engines on
residual fuel because it is not profitable
to do this for only the U.S. market
(according to the U.S. Maritime
Administration, while the U.S. fleet of
ocean-going vessels above 10,000
deadweight tons is 13th largest in the
world with 295 vessels, there were only
13 vessels built in 2005).133 Engine
manufacturers also informed us that
they are not sure they could meet the
PM limits for the Category 1 engines on
residual fuel.
The most obvious solution for vessels
in this situation is to install and use
certified distillate fuel engines. Ship
builders have indicated that this option
would be prohibitively expensive for
ship owners and have asked EPA to
reconsider the control program for these
engines. We are requesting comment on
this issue, and especially on the costs
associated with installing and using
distillate auxiliary engines instead of
residual auxiliary engines on these
vessels. We are particularly interested in
data that would indicate whether such
additional costs would represent an
undue burden to the owners of these
vessels and whether the additional cost
in terms of tons of PM and NOX reduced
would be significantly higher than what
is required of users of non-residual fuel
auxiliary engines.
One possibility to address the
shipbuilders’ concerns would be to
create a compliance flexibility for
auxiliary engines intended to be
installed on vessels with Category 3
propulsion engines. The flexibility
could consist of pulling ahead NOX
aftertreatment for these engines by
setting a tighter NOX limit (1.8 g/kW-hr)
while setting an alternative PM limit
(0.5 g/kW-hr) equivalent to the Tier 2
Category 2 limit. These engines would
still be required to be certified on
residual fuel, for the reasons described
above. However, we could allow
alternative PM measurement
procedures, such as a two-step approach
that would remove the water component
of the exhaust, which would take into
account the difficulty in measuring PM
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 https://www.marad.dot.gov/
MARAD_statistics/#Fleet%20Statistics
and World Merchant Fleet 2001–2005 (July 2006)
accessed at https://www.marad.dot.gov/
MARAD_statistics/2005%20STATISTICS/
World%20Merchant%20Fleet%202005.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16006
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
when the sulfur levels of the test fuel
are high.
Controlling emissions from residual
fuelled engines is inherently difficult
due to the characteristics of residual
fuels. In particular, the high levels of
sulfur and other metals present in
residual fuel lead to high levels of PM
emissions and can damage catalyst
based emission control technologies.
Urea SCR catalyst systems have been
developed to work under similar
conditions for coal fired power plants
and some marine applications. We
project that these solutions could be
used to enable a residual fuelled marine
diesel engine to meet the same emission
NOX emission standard as distillate
fuelled engines of 1.8 g/kWhr.
Unfortunately, the high levels of sulfur
and other metals in residual fuels make
it impossible to apply catalyst based
emission control systems to reduce PM
emissions. Stationary residual fuelled
engines have demonstrated that PM
emission levels around 0.5 g/kWhr are
possible, and we believe similar
solutions can be applied to these same
engines in marine applications.
Such a compliance flexibility would
not be automatic; engine manufacturers
would have to apply for it. This is
necessary to ensure that the questions of
test fuel and PM measurement are
resolved before the certification testing
begins. In addition, engines would have
to be labeled as intended for use only
as auxiliary engines onboard vessels
with Category 3 propulsion engines.
We are requesting comment on all
aspects of this compliance flexibility,
including the need for it and how it
should be structured.
V. Costs and Economic Impacts
In this section, we present the
projected cost impacts and cost
effectiveness of the proposed standards,
and our analysis of potential economic
impacts on affected markets. The
projected benefits and benefit-cost
analysis are presented in Section VI.
The benefit-cost analysis explores the
net yearly economic benefits to society
of the reduction in mobile source
emissions likely to be achieved by this
rulemaking. The economic impact
analysis explores how the costs of the
rule will likely be shared across the
manufacturers and users of the engines
and equipment that would be affected
by the standards.
The total monetized benefits of the
proposed standards, when based on
published scientific studies of the risk
of PM-related premature mortality, these
benefits are projected to be more than
$12 billion in 2030, assuming a 3
percent discount rate (or $11 billion
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
assuming a 7 percent discount rate). Our
estimate of total monetized benefits
based on the PM-related premature
mortality expert elicitation is between
$4.6 billion and $33 billion in 2030,
assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or
$4.3 and $30 billion assuming a 7
percent discount rate). The social costs
of the proposed program are estimated
to be approximately $600 million in
2030.134 The impact of these costs on
society are estimated to be minimal,
with the prices of rail and marine
transportation services estimated to
increase by less about 0.4 percent for
locomotive transportation services and
about 0.6 percent for marine
transportation services.
Further information on these and
other aspects of the economic impacts of
our proposal are summarized in the
following sections and are presented in
more detail in the Draft RIA for this
rulemaking. We invite the reader to
comment on all aspects of these
analyses, including our methodology
and the assumptions and data that
underlie our analysis.
A. Engineering Costs
The following sections briefly discuss
the various engine and equipment cost
elements considered for this proposal
and present the total engineering costs
we have estimated for this rulemaking;
the reader is referred to Chapter 5 of the
draft RIA for a complete discussion of
our engineering cost estimates. When
referring to ‘‘equipment’’ costs
throughout this discussion, we mean the
locomotive and/or marine vessel related
costs as opposed to costs associated
with the diesel engine being placed into
the locomotive or vessel. Estimated new
engine and equipment engineering costs
depend largely on both the size of the
piece of equipment and its engine, and
on the technology package being added
to the engine to ensure compliance with
the proposed standards. The wide size
variation of engines covered by this
proposal (e.g., small marine engines
with less than 37 kW (50 horsepower, or
hp) through locomotive and marine C2
engines with over 3000 kW (4000 hp)
and the broad application variation (e.g.,
small pleasure crafts through large line
haul locomotives and cargo vessels) that
exists in these industries makes it
difficult to present an estimated cost for
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
every possible engine and/or piece of
equipment. Nonetheless, for illustrative
purposes, we present some example per
engine/equipment engineering cost
impacts throughout this discussion.
This engineering cost analysis is
presented in detail in Chapter 5 of the
draft RIA.
Note that the engineering costs here
do not reflect changes to the fuel used
to power locomotive and marine
engines. Our Nonroad Tier 4 rule (69 FR
38958) controlled the sulfur level in all
nonroad fuel, including that used in
locomotives and marine engines. The
sulfur level in the fuel is a critical
element of the proposed locomotive and
marine program. However, since the
costs of controlling locomotive and
marine fuel sulfur have been considered
in our Nonroad Tier 4 rule, they are not
considered here. This analysis considers
only those costs associated with the
proposed locomotive and marine
program. Also, the engineering costs
presented here do not reflect any
savings that are expected to occur
because of the engine ABT program and
the various flexibilities included in the
program which are discussed in section
IV of this preamble. As discussed there,
these program features have the
potential to provide savings for both
engine and locomotive/vessel
manufacturers. We request comment
with supporting data and/or analysis on
the engineering cost estimates presented
here and the underlying analysis
presented in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.
(1) New Engine and Equipment Variable
Engineering Costs
Engineering costs for exhaust
emission control devices (i.e., catalyzed
DPFs, urea SCR systems, and DOCs)
were estimated using a methodology
consistent with the one used in our
2007 heavy-duty highway rulemaking.
In that rule, surveys were provided to
nine engine manufacturers seeking
information relevant to estimating the
engineering costs for and types of
emission-control technologies that
might be enabled with ultra low-sulfur
diesel fuel (15 ppm S). The survey
responses were used as the first step in
estimating the engineering costs of
advanced emission control technologies
anticipated for meeting the 2007 heavyduty highway standards. We then built
upon these engineering costs using
input from members of the
Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (MECA). We also used this
information in our recent nonroad Tier
4 (NRT4) rule. Because the anticipated
emission control technologies expected
to be used on locomotive and marine
engines are the same as or similar to
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16007
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
those expected for highway and
nonroad engines, and because the
expected suppliers of the technologies
are the same for these engines, we have
used that analysis as the starting point
for estimating the engineering costs of
these technologies in this rule.135
Importantly, the analysis summarized
here and detailed in the draft RIA takes
into account specific differences
between the locomotive and marine
products when compared to on-highway
trucks (e.g., engine size).
Engineering costs of control include
variable costs (for new hardware, its
assembly, and associated markups) and
fixed costs (for tooling, research,
redesign efforts, and certification). We
are projecting that the Tier 3 standards
will be met by optimizing the engine
and emission controls that will exist on
locomotive and marine engines in the
Tier 3 timeframe. Therefore, we have
estimated no hardware costs associated
with the Tier 3 standards. For the Tier
4 standards, we are projecting that SCR
systems and DPFs will be the most
likely technologies used to comply.
Upon installation in a new locomotive
or a new marine vessel, these devices
would require some new equipment
related hardware in the form of brackets
and new sheet metal. The annual
variable costs for example years, the
PM/NOX split of those engineering
costs, and the net present values that
would result are presented in Table V–
1.136 As shown, we estimate the net
present value for the years 2006 through
2040 of all variable costs at $1.4 billion
using a three percent discount rate, with
$1.3 billion of that being engine-related
variable costs. Using a seven percent
discount rate, these costs are $630
million and $586 million, respectively.
TABLE V–1.—NEW ENGINE AND EQUIPMENT VARIABLE ENGINEERING COSTS
[$Millions]
Engine variable engineering costs
Year
Equipment
variable engineering costs
Total variable
engineering
costs
0
0
32
87
105
104
1,297
586
0
0
4
6
8
8
99
44
0
0
36
94
113
112
1,395
630
2011 .....................................................................................
2012 .....................................................................................
2015 .....................................................................................
2020 .....................................................................................
2030 .....................................................................................
2040 .....................................................................................
NPV at 3% ...........................................................................
NPV at 7% ...........................................................................
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,
Total for PM
Total for
NOX+NMHC
0
0
34
49
59
59
749
342
0
0
2
45
54
53
646
288
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]
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
54,650
Locomotive
switcher a
C1 Marine
C2 Marine
Recreational
marine b
Small marine
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
13,640
........................
0
0
0
0
11,560
20,550
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
29,980
55,770
........................
0
0
0
0
0
0
d$0
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
Locomotive
line haul
<50 Hp (<37 kW) .....................................
50≤hp<75 (37<=kW<56) ..........................
75≤hp<200 (56<=kW<149) ......................
200≤hp<400 (149≤kW<298) ....................
400≤hp<800 (298≤kW<597) ....................
800≤hp<2000 (597≤kW<1492) ................
≥2000 Hp (≥1492 kW) .............................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Power range
(c)
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.
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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
1999, Public Docket No. A–2001–28, Docket Item
II–A–76.
136 The PM/NO +NMHC cost allocations for
X
variable costs used in this cost analysis are as
follows: Urea SCR systems including marinization
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
costs on marine applications are 100%
NOX+NMHC; DPF systems including marinization
costs on marine applications are 100% PM; and,
equipment hardware costs are split evenly.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16008
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(2) New Engine and Equipment Fixed
Engineering Costs
Because these technologies are being
researched for implementation in the
highway and nonroad markets well
before the locomotive and marine
emission standards take effect, and
because engine manufacturers will have
had several years complying with the
highway and nonroad standards, we
believe that the technologies used to
comply with the locomotive and marine
standards will have undergone
significant development before reaching
locomotive and marine production. In
fact, we believe that this transfer of
learning—from highway to nonroad to
locomotive and marine—is real and
have quantified it. Chapter 5 of the draft
RIA details our approach and we seek
comment on the 10 percent and 70
percent factors we have employed at
each transfer step. We anticipate that
engine manufacturers would introduce a
combination of primary technology
upgrades to meet the new emission
standards. Achieving very low NOX
emissions requires basic research on
NOX emission-control technologies and
improvements in engine management.
There would also have to be some level
of tooling expenditures to make possible
the fitting of new hardware on
locomotive and marine engines. We also
expect that locomotives and marine
vessels being fitted with Tier 4 engines
would have to undergo some level of
redesign to accommodate the
aftertreatment devices expected to meet
the Tier 4 standards. The total of fixed
engineering costs and the net present
values of those costs are shown in Table
V–3.137 As shown, we have estimated
the net present value for the years 2006
through 2040 of all fixed engineering
costs at $424 million using a three
percent discount rate, with $381 million
of that being engine-related fixed costs.
Using a seven percent discount rate,
these costs are $324 million and $297
million, respectively.
TABLE V–3.—ENGINE AND EQUIPMENT FIXED ENGINEERING COSTS
($Million)
Engine
research
Year
2011 .................................................................................
2012 .................................................................................
2015 .................................................................................
2020 .................................................................................
2030 .................................................................................
2040 .................................................................................
NPV at 3% .......................................................................
NPV at 7% .......................................................................
75
55
51
0
0
0
341
267
Engine
tooling
19
0
17
0
0
0
33
24
Equipment
redesign
Engine
certification
5
0
1
0
0
0
7
6
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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.
137 The PM/NO +NMHC cost allocations for fixed
X
costs used in this cost analysis are as follows:
Engine research expenditures are 67% NOX+NMHC
and 33% PM; engine tooling and certification costs
are split evenly; and, equipment redesign costs are
split evenly.
138 The PM/NO +NMHC cost allocations for
X
operating costs used in this cost analysis are as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Total
fixed
engineering
costs
0
0
22
4
0
0
43
27
99
55
90
4
0
0
424
324
Total
for PM
Total for
NOX+NMHC
39
18
34
2
0
0
155
118
59
37
56
2
0
0
269
206
accumulated ash resulting from
unburned material that accumulates in
the DPF) would occur in those
locomotives/vessels that are equipped
with a DPF engine. The fuel
consumption impact is anticipated to
occur more broadly—we expect that a
one percent fuel consumption increase
would occur for all new Tier 4 engines,
locomotive and marine, due to higher
exhaust backpressure resulting from
aftertreatment devices. We also expect a
one percent fuel consumption increase
would occur for remanufactured Tier 0
locomotives due to our expectation that
the tighter NOX standard would be met
using retarded timing. These costs and
how the fleet cost estimates were
generated are detailed in Chapter 5 of
the draft RIA and are summarized in
Table V–4.138
follows: Urea costs are 100% NOX+NMHC; DPF
maintenance costs are 100% PM; and, fuel
consumption impacts are split evenly.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16009
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–4.—ESTIMATED INCREASED OPERATING COSTS
($Millions)
Urea
use
Year
2011 .......................................................................................................
2012 .......................................................................................................
2015 .......................................................................................................
2020 .......................................................................................................
2030 .......................................................................................................
2040 .......................................................................................................
NPV at 3% .............................................................................................
NPV at 7% .............................................................................................
As shown, we have estimated the net
present value for the years 2006 through
2040 of the annual operating costs at $4
billion using a three percent discount
rate and $1.6 billion using a seven
percent discount rate. The urea and DPF
maintenance costs are zero until Tier 4
engines start being sold since only the
Tier 4 engines are expected to add these
technologies. Urea use represents the
largest source of increased operating
costs. Because urea use is meant for
controlling NOX emissions, most of the
operating costs are associated with
NOX+NMHC control.
0
0
4
85
300
458
2,850
1,090
DPF
maintenance
0
0
0
3
8
11
74
29
(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
Fuel
consumption
impact
Total
operating
costs
11
13
21
50
99
142
1,116
477
11
13
25
137
407
611
4,039
1,595
Total
for PM
Total for
NOX+MHC
5
6
11
28
57
82
631
267
5
6
15
110
350
528
3,408
1,328
are only those engineering costs
resulting from the proposed requirement
to meet a more stringent standard than
the engine was designed to meet at its
original sale. These engineering costs
and how the fleet cost estimates were
generated are detailed in Chapter 5 of
the draft RIA and are summarized in
Table V–5.139 As shown, we have
estimated the net present value for the
years 2006 through 2040 of the annual
engineering costs associated with the
locomotive remanufacturing program at
$1.4 billion using a three percent
discount rate and $682 million using a
seven percent discount rate.
TABLE V–5.—ESTIMATED ENGINEERING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOCOMOTIVE REMANUFACTURING PROGRAM
($Millions)
Remanufacturing
Program
Costs
Year
2011 .............................................................................................................................................................
2012 .............................................................................................................................................................
2015 .............................................................................................................................................................
2020 .............................................................................................................................................................
2030 .............................................................................................................................................................
2040 .............................................................................................................................................................
NPV at 3% ...................................................................................................................................................
NPV at 7% ...................................................................................................................................................
(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
97
75
31
15
85
153
1,374
682
Total for
PM
49
37
15
8
43
77
687
341
Total for
NOX+NMHC
49
37
15
8
43
77
687
341
locomotive remanufacturing program.
These costs are summarized in Table
V–6.
TABLE V–6.—TOTAL ENGINEERING COSTS OF THE PROPOSAL
[$Millions]
Engine related
engineering
costs
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Year
Equipment
related engineering costs
99
55
0
0
2011 .............................
2012 .............................
Engineering
costs of the
remanufacturing program
Operating
costs
11
13
Total
engineering
costs
97
75
207
142
139 Costs associated with the remanufacturing
program are split evenly between NOX+NMHC and
PM.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Total PM costs
93
62
Total
NOX+NMHC
costs
113
80
16010
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–6.—TOTAL ENGINEERING COSTS OF THE PROPOSAL—Continued
[$Millions]
Engine related
engineering
costs
Year
Equipment
related engineering costs
100
87
105
104
1,678
883
25
10
8
8
141
71
2015 .............................
2020 .............................
2030 .............................
2040 .............................
NPV at 3% ...................
NPV at 7% ...................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
As shown, we have estimated the net
present value of the annual engineering
costs for the years 2006 through 2040 at
$7.2 billion using a three percent
discount rate and $3.2 billion using a
seven percent discount rate. Roughly
half of these costs are operating costs,
with the bulk of those being urea related
costs. As explained above in the
operating cost discussion, because urea
use is meant for controlling NOX
emissions, most of the operating costs
and, therefore, the majority of the total
engineering costs are associated with
NOX+NMHC control.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Engineering
costs of the
remanufacturing program
Operating
costs
25
187
407
611
4,039
1,595
31
15
85
153
1,374
682
Figure V–1 graphically depicts the
annual engineering costs associated
with today’s proposed program. The
engine costs shown represent the
engineering costs associated with engine
research and tooling, etc., and the
incremental costs for new hardware
such as DPFs and urea SCR systems.
The equipment costs shown represent
the engineering costs associated with
equipment redesign efforts and the
incremental costs for new equipmentrelated hardware such as sheet metal
and brackets. The remanufacturing
program costs include incremental
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Total
engineering
costs
181
250
605
876
7,233
3,231
Total PM costs
93
836
159
218
2,222
1,068
Total
NOX+NMHC
costs
88
164
446
658
5,011
2,163
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
B. Cost Effectiveness
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
2015 .................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PM10a
7,000
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
7,000
03APP2
NOX
84,000
NMHC
14,000
EP03AP07.006
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
One tool that can be used to assess the
value of the proposed program is the
engineering costs incurred per ton of
emissions reduced. This analysis
involves a comparison of our proposed
program to other measures that have
been or could be implemented. As
summarized in this section and detailed
in the draft RIA, the locomotive and
marine diesel program being proposed
today represents a highly cost effective
mobile source control program for
reducing PM and NOX emissions.
We have calculated the cost per ton of
our proposed program based on the net
present value of all engineering costs
incurred and all emission reductions
generated from the current year 2006
through the year 2040. This approach
captures all of the costs and emissions
reductions from our proposed program
including those costs incurred and
emissions reductions generated by the
locomotive remanufacturing program.
The baseline case for this evaluation is
the existing set of engine standards for
locomotive and marine diesel engines
and the existing locomotive
16011
16012
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–7.—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE
STANDARDS—Continued
[Short tons]
Year
PM10a
PM2.5
2020 .................................................................................................................
2030 .................................................................................................................
2040 .................................................................................................................
NPV at 3% .......................................................................................................
NPV at 7% .......................................................................................................
15,000
28,000
38,000
315,000
136,000
NOX
15,000
29,000
40,000
325,000
140,000
NMHC
293,000
765,000
1,123,000
7,869,000
3,188,000
25,000
39,000
50,000
480,000
216,000
a Note that, PM
2.5 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 discounted lifetime cost per
ton at 3%
Pollutant
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
NOX+NMHC .................................................................................................................................
PM ................................................................................................................................................
The costs per ton shown in Table V–
8 for 2006 through 2040 use the net
present value of the annualized
engineering costs and emissions
reductions associated with the program
for the years 2006 through 2040. We
have also calculated the costs per ton of
emissions reduced in the year 2030
using the annual engineering costs and
emissions reductions in that year alone.
These numbers are also shown in Table
V–8 and represent the long-term annual
costs per ton of emissions reduced.140
All of the costs per ton include costs
and emission reductions that will occur
from the locomotive remanufacturing
program.
In comparison with other emissions
control programs, we believe that the
proposed locomotive and marine
program represents a cost effective
strategy for generating substantial
NOX+NMHC and PM reductions. This
can be seen by comparing the cost
effectiveness of this proposed with the
cost effectiveness of a number of
standards that EPA has adopted in the
past.Table V–9 and Table V–10
summarize the cost per ton of several
past EPA actions to reduce emissions of
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
NOX+NMHC and PM from mobile
sources.
TABLE V–9.—PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE
AND MARINE STANDARDS COMPARED
TO
PREVIOUS MOBILE
SOURCE
[Programs for NOX+NMHC]
$/ton
NOX+NMHC
Program
Today’s locomotive & marine
proposal ............................
Tier 4 Nonroad Diesel (69
FR 39131) .........................
Tier 2 Nonroad Diesel
(EPA420–R–98–016,
Chapter 6) .........................
Tier 3 Nonroad Diesel
(EPA420–R–98–016,
Chapter 6) .........................
Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur
(65 FR 6774) .....................
2007 Highway HD (66 FR
5101) .................................
2004 Highway HD (65 FR
59936) ...............................
600
1,010
630
2006 thru
2040 discounted lifetime cost per
ton at 7%
$600
6,840
$630
7,640
Long-term cost
per ton in
2030
$550
5,560
TABLE V–10.—PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE STANDARDS
COMPARED TO PREVIOUS MOBILE
SOURCE
[Programs for PM]
Program
Today’s locomotive & marine
proposal ............................
Tier 4 Nonroad Diesel (69
FR 39131) .........................
Tier 1/Tier 2 Nonroad Diesel
(EPA420–R–98–016,
Chapter 6) .........................
2007 Highway HD (66 FR
5101) .................................
$/ton PM
6,840
11,200
2,390
14,180
Note: Costs adjusted to 2002 dollars using
the Producer Price Index for Total Manufacturing Industries.
C. EIA
We prepared an Economic Impact
1,400–2,350 Analysis (EIA) to estimate the economic
impacts of the proposed emission
2,240 control program on the locomotive and
marine diesel engine and vessel
220–430 markets. In this section we briefly
describe the Economic Impact Model
Note: Costs adjusted to 2002 dollars using (EIM) we developed to estimate the
the Producer Price Index for Total Manufacmarket-level changes in price and
turing Industries.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
430
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
all aspects of the analysis, including the
model and the model inputs.
We estimate the net social costs of the
proposed program to be approximately
$600 million in 2030.141 142 The rail
sector is expected to bear about 64
percent of the social costs of the
program in 2030, and the marine sector
is expected to bear about 36 percent. In
each of these two sectors, these social
costs are expected to be born primarily
by producers and users of locomotive
and marine transportation services (63.3
and 33.2 percent, respectively). The
remaining 3.5 percent is expected to be
borne by locomotive, marine engine,
and marine vessel manufacturers and
fishing and recreational users.
With regard to market-level impacts
in 2030, the average price of a
locomotive is expected to increase about
2.6 percent ($49,100 per unit), but sales
are not expected to decrease. In the
marine markets, the expected impacts
are different for engines above and
below 800 hp (600 kW). With regard to
engines above 800 hp and the vessels
that use them, the average price of an
engine is expected to increase by about
8.4 percent for C1 engines and 18.7
percent for C2 engines ($13,300 and
$48,700, respectively). However, the
expected impact of these increased
prices on the average price of vessels
that use these engines is smaller, at
about 1.1 percent and 3.6 percent
respectively ($16,200 and $141,600).
The decrease in engine and vessel
production is expected to be negligible,
at less than 10 units. For engines less
than 800 hp and the vessels that use
them, the expected price increase and
quantity decrease are expected to be
negligible, less than 0.1 percent. Finally,
even with the increases in the prices of
locomotives and large marine diesel
engines, the expected impacts on prices
in the locomotive and marine
transportation service markets are small,
at 0.4 and 0.6 percent, respectively.
(1) What Is an Economic Impact
Analysis?
An EIA is prepared to inform decision
makers about the potential economic
consequences of a regulatory action. The
analysis consists of estimating the social
costs of a regulatory program and the
distribution of these costs across
stakeholders. These estimated social
costs can then be compared with
estimated social benefits presented
above. As defined in EPA’s Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses, social
costs are the value of the goods and
services lost by society resulting from
(a) the use of resources to comply with
and implement a regulation and (b)
reductions in output.143 In this analysis,
social costs are explored in two steps. In
the market analysis, we estimate how
prices and quantities of goods and
services affected by the proposed
emission control program can be
expected to change once the program
goes into effect. In the economic welfare
analysis, we look at the total social costs
associated with the program and their
distribution across key stakeholders.
(2) What Is the Economic Impact Model?
The EIM is the behavioral model we
developed to estimate price and
quantity changes and total social costs
associated with the emission controls
16013
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
Rail ...............
Rail Transportation
Services.
Locomotives ..................
Entities that use rail transportation services as
production input or for personal transportation.
Railroads ...............................................................
Marine Transportation
Services.
Entities that use marine transportation services
as production input.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Marine ..........
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Supply
$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.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Railroads.
Locomotive manufacturers (integrated manufacturers).
Entities that provide marine transportation services.
• Tug/tow/pushboat companies.
• Cargo companies.
• Ferry companies.
• Supply/crew companies.
• Other commercial users.
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
https://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/
Guidelines.html
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16014
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–11.—ECONOMIC SECTORS INCLUDED IN THE LOCO/MARINE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL—Continued
Sector
Market
Demand
Marine Vessels ..............
Entities that provide marine transportation services.
• Tug/tow/pushboat companies. ...........................
• Cargo companies. ..............................................
• Ferry companies. ...............................................
• Supply/crew companies. ....................................
• Other commercial users. ...................................
• Fishing persons. ................................................
• Recreation users. ...............................................
Vessel manufacturers ............................................
Marine Diesel Engines ..
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(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
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-ofsight characteristics than what is needed for
switchers. Therefore, the industry is anticipating a
new market for dedicated switchers.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Supply
Vessel manufacturers.
Engine manufacturers.
for switchers reflect the expected design
characteristics for these locomotives and
their lower total power. We request
comment on the switcher aspect of the
model. Consistent with the engineering
cost analysis, the passenger market is
combined with the switcher market in
this EIA because we do not have
separate compliance costs estimates for
each of those two market segments. We
request comment on this, and on
whether it would be more appropriate to
model the passenger market like the line
haul market.
Rail Transportation Services. The rail
transportation services market consists
of entities that provide and utilize rail
transportation services. On this supply
side, these are the railroads. On the
demand side, these are rail
transportation service users such as the
chemical and agricultural industries and
the personal transportation industry.
The EIM does not estimate the economic
impact of the proposed emission control
program on ultimate finished goods
markets that use rail transportation
services as inputs. This is because
transportation services are only a small
portion of the total variable costs of
goods and services manufactured using
these bulk inputs. Also, changes in
prices of transportation services due to
the estimated compliance costs are not
expected to be large enough to affect the
prices and output of goods that use rail
transportation services as an input.
(b) Marine Sector Component
The marine sector component of the
EIM distinguishes between engine,
vessel, and ultimate user markets
(marine transportation service users,
fishing users, recreational users). This is
because, in contrast to the locomotive
market, manufacturers in the diesel
marine market are not integrated.
Marine engines and vessels are
manufactured by different entities.
Marine Engine Market. The marine
engine markets consist of marine engine
manufacturers on the supply side and
vessel manufacturers on the demand
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
set out in OAQPS’s Economic Analysis
Resource Document.145
The EIM is a computer model
comprised of a series of spreadsheet
modules that simulate the supply and
demand characteristics of each of the
markets under consideration. The initial
market equilibrium conditions are
shocked by applying the compliance
costs for the control program to the
supply side of the markets (this is done
by shifting the relevant supply curves
by the amount of the compliance costs).
The EIM uses the model equations,
model inputs, and a solution algorithm
to estimate equilibrium prices and
quantities for the markets with the
regulatory program. These new prices
and quantities are used to estimate the
social costs of the model and how those
costs are shared among affected markets.
The EIM uses a multi-market partial
equilibrium approach to track changes
in price and quantity for the modeled
markets. As explained in EPA’s
Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses, ‘‘partial equilibrium’’ means
that the model considers markets in
isolation and that conditions in other
markets are assumed to be either
unaffected by a policy or unimportant
for social cost estimation. Multi-market
models go beyond partial equilibrium
analysis by extending the inquiry to
more than just a single market and
attempt to capture at least some of the
interaction between markets.146 In the
marine sector, the model captures the
interactions between the engine
markets, the vessel markets, and the
marine transportation service markets;
in the rail sector, it captures the
interactions between the locomotive
markets and the rail transportation
service markets.
The EIM uses an intermediate run
time frame. This means that some
factors of production are fixed and some
are variable. In very short analyses, all
factors of production would be assumed
to be fixed, leaving the producers with
no means to respond to the increased
production costs associated with the
regulation (e.g., they cannot adjust labor
or capital inputs). Under this time
horizon, the costs of the regulation fall
entirely on the producer. In the long
run, all factors of production are
variable and producers can adjust
production in response to cost changes
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 https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/econdata/Rmanual2/.
146 EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003, September 2000, pp.
125–6.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16015
imposed by the regulation (e.g., using a
different labor/capital mix) and changes
in consumer demand due to price
changes. In the intermediate run there is
some resource immobility which may
cause producers to suffer producer
surplus losses, but they can also pass
some of the compliance costs to
consumers.
The EIM assumes a perfectly
competitive market structure. The
perfect competition assumption is
widely accepted for this type of
analysis, and only in rare cases are other
approaches used.147 It should be noted
that the perfect competition assumption
is not about the number of firms in a
market; it is about how the market
operates. The markets included in this
analysis do not exhibit evidence of
noncompetitive behavior: These are
mature markets; there are no indications
of barriers to entry for the marine
transportation, fishing, and recreational
markets; the firms in the affected
markets are not price setters; and there
is no evidence of high levels of strategic
behavior in the price and quantity
decisions of the firms. The perfect
competition assumption is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 7 of the RIA.
The perfect competition assumption
has an impact on the way the EIM is
structured. In a competitive market the
supply curve is based on the industry
marginal cost curve; fixed costs do not
influence production decisions at the
margin. Therefore, in the market
analysis, the model is shocked by
variable costs only. However, an
argument can be made that fixed costs
must be recovered; otherwise
manufacturers would go out of business.
This analysis assumes that
manufacturers cover their fixed costs
through their current product
development budgets. If this is the case,
then the rule would have the effect of
shifting product development resources
to regulatory compliance from other
market-based investment decisions.
Thus, fixed costs are a cost to society
because they displace other product
development activities that may
improve the quality or performance of
engines and equipment. Therefore these
costs are included in the social welfare
costs, as a social cost that accrues to
producers. We request comment on the
extent to which manufacturers can be
expected to use current product
development resources to cover the
fixed costs associated with the
standards (thus foregoing product
development projects in the short term),
147 See, for example, EPA Guidelines for
Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240–R–00–003,
September 2000, p 126.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16016
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
and whether current product
development budgets would cover the
compliance costs in the year in which
they occur. We also request comment on
whether companies would instead
attempt to pass on these fixed costs as
an additional price increase and, if the
latter, how much of the fixed costs
would be passed on, and for how long.
The EIM is a market-level analysis
that estimates the aggregate economic
impacts of the control program on the
relevant markets. It is not a firm-level
analysis and therefore the supply
elasticity or individual compliance costs
facing any particular manufacturer may
be different from the market average.
This difference can be important,
particularly where the rule affects
different firms’ costs over different
volumes of production. However, to the
extent there are differential effects, EPA
believes that the wide array of
flexibilities provided in this rule are
adequate to address any cost inequities
that may arise.
Finally, consistent with the proposed
emission controls, this EIA covers
locomotives and marine diesel engines
and vessels sold in 50 states.
(5) What Are the Key Model Inputs?
Key model inputs for the EIM are the
behavioral parameters, the market
equilibrium quantities and prices, and
the compliance costs estimates.
The model’s behavioral paramaters
are the price elasticities of supply and
demand. These parameters reflect how
producers and consumers of the engines
and equipment affected by the standards
can be expected to change their
behavior in response to the costs
incurred in complying with the
standards. More specifically, the price
elasticity of supply and demand
(reflected in the slope of the supply and
demand curves) measure the price
sensitivity of consumers and producers.
The price elasticities used in this
analysis are summarized in V–12 and
are described in more detail in Chapter
7 of the RIA. An ‘‘inelastic’’ price
elasticity (less than one) means that
supply or demand is not very
responsive to price changes (a one
percent change in price leads to less
than one percent change in demand).
An ‘‘elastic’’ price elasticity (more than
one) means that supply or demand is
sensitive to price changes (a one percent
change in price leads to more than one
percent change in demand). A price
elasticity of one is unit elastic, meaning
there is a one-to-one correspondence
between a change in price and change
in demand.
TABLE V–12.—BEHAVIORAL PARAMETERS USED IN LOCO/MARINE ECONOMIC IMPACT MODEL
Sector
Market
Demand elasticity
Source
Supply
elasticity
Rail .............................
Rail Transportation
Services.
Locomotives (all
types).
Marine Transportation
Services.
Vessels Commercial a
¥0.5 (inelastic) .........
Literature Estimate ....
0.6 (inelastic) ............
Literature Estimate.
Derived ......................
N/A ............................
2.7 (elastic) ...............
¥0.5 (inelastic) .........
Literature Estimate ....
0.6 (inelastic) ............
Calibration Method
Estimate.
Literature Estimate.
Derived ......................
N/A ............................
2.3 (elastic) ...............
Fishing ......................
¥1.4 (elastic) ............
Econometric Estimate
1.6 (elastic) ...............
Recreational ..............
Engines .....................
¥1.4 (elastic) ............
Derived ......................
Econometric Estimate
N/A ............................
1.6 (elastic) ...............
3.8 (elastic)
Marine ........................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
a Commercial
Econometric Estimate.
Econometric Estimate.
Econometric Estimate.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Source
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Variable costs are the driver of the
market impacts. There are no variable
costs associated with the Tier 3 new
engine standards because the Tier 3
standards are engine-out emission limits
and engine manufacturers are expected
to comply by maximizing the emission
reduction potential of controls they are
already using rather than adding new
components. The variable costs
associated with Tier 4 begin to apply in
2015, for locomotive PM standards;
2016, for marine PM and NOX
standards; and 2017, for locomotive
NOX standards.
Operating costs are the additional
costs for associated with urea use and
DPF maintenance as well as additional
fuel consumption for both Tier 4
engines and remanufactured locomotive
Tier 0 engines. These begin to occur
when the standards go into effect. In the
EIM, operating costs are attributed to
railroads and vessel owners. On the
marine side, all marine operating costs
are applied to the marine transportation
services market even though there will
be Tier 4 engine in the recreational and
fishing markets. This approach was
taken because the operating costs (fuel
and urea consumption) were estimated
based on fuel consumption and we
believe that most of the fuel consumed
in the marine sector is by vessels in the
marine transportation services sector.
As a result of this assumption, the
impacts on the marine transportation
service market may be somewhat overestimated. We request comment on this
simplifying assumption.
Remanufacturing costs are incurred
when locomotives are remanufactured
(there is no corresponding
remanufacture requirement for marine
diesel, although we are requesting
comment on such a program). These
costs represent the difference between
the cost of current remanufacture kits
and those that will be required pursuant
to the standards. In the EIM, these costs
are allocated to the railroads; the
remanufacture market is not modeled
separately. This is appropriate because
railroads are required to purchase these
kits when they rebuild their
locomotives. Their sensitivity to price
changes is likely to be very inelastic
because they cannot operate the relevant
locomotives without using a certified
remanufacture kit. This means the kit
manufacturers would be able to pass
most if not all of the costs of these kits
to the railroads. We request comment on
this approach for including
remanufacture costs in the model.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16017
2011, 2016, and 2030. These years were
chosen because 2011 is the first year of
the Tier 3 standards, 2016 is when the
Tier 4 standards begin for most engines,
and 2030 illustrates the long-term
impacts of the program. Results for all
years can be found in Chapter 7 of the
RIA.
The estimated market impacts are
designed to provide a broad overview of
the expected market impacts that is
useful when considering the impacts of
the rule. Absolute price changes and
relative price/quantity changes reflect
production-weighted averages of the
individual market-level estimates
generated by the model for each group
of engine/equipment markets. For
example, the estimated marine diesel
engine price changes are productionweighted averages of the estimated
results for all of the marine diesel
engine markets included in the
group.148 The absolute change in
quantity is the sum of the decrease in
units produced across sub-markets
within each engine/equipment group.
For example, the estimated marine
diesel engine quantity changes reflect
the total decline in marine diesel
engines produced. The aggregated data
presented in Table V–13 is intended to
provide a broad overview of the
expected market impacts that is useful
when considering the impacts of the
rule on the economy as a whole and not
the impacts on a particular engine or
equipment category.
Locomotive Sector Impacts. On the
locomotive side, the proposed program
is expected to have a negligible impact
on locomotive prices and quantities. In
2011, the expected impacts are mainly
the result of the operating costs
associated with locomotive
remanufacturing standards. These
standards impose an operating cost on
railroad transportation providers and
are expected to result in a slight
increase in the price of locomotive
transportation services (about 0.1
percent, on average) and a slight
decrease in the quantity of services
provided (about 0.1 percent, on
average). The locomotive
remanufacturing program is also
expected to have a small impact on the
new locomotive market. The
remanufacturing program will increase
railroad operating costs, which expected
to result in an increase in the price of
transportation services. This increase
will results in a decrease in demand for
rail transportation services and
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16018
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ultimately in a decrease in the demand
for locomotives and a decrease in their
price. In other words, the market will
contract slightly. We estimate a
reduction in the price of locomotives of
about $425, or about 0.02 percent on
average.
Beginning in 2016, the market
impacts are affected by both the
operating costs and the direct costs
associated with the Tier 4 standards. As
a result of both of these impacts, the
price of a new locomotive is expected to
increase by about 1.9 percent ($35,900),
on average and the quantity produced is
expected to decrease by about 0.1
percent, on average (less than one
locomotive). Locomotive transportation
service prices are expected to decrease
by about 0.1 percent). By 2030, the price
of new locomotives is expected to
increase by about 2.6 percent ($49,000),
on average, and the quantity expected to
decrease by about 0.2 percent (less than
one locomotive). The price of rail
transportation services is expected to
increase by about 0.4 percent.
Marine Sector Impacts. On the marine
engine side, the expected impacts are
different for engines above and below
800 hp (600 kW). With regard to engines
above 800 hp and the vessels that use
them, the proposed program does not
begin to affect market prices or
quantities until the Tier 4 standards go
into effect, which is in 2016 for most
engines. For these engines, the price of
a new engine in 2016 is expected to
increase between 11.0 and 24.6 percent,
on average ($17,300 for C1 engines
above 800 hp and $64,100 for C2
engines above 800 hp), depending on
the type of engine, and sales are
expected to decrease less than 2.0
percent, on average. The price of vessels
that use them is expected to increase
between 1.7 and 1.0 percent ($20,900 for
vessels that use C1 engines above 800
hp and $188,600 for vessels that use C2
engines above 800 hp) and sales are
expected to decrease less than 2.0
percent. The percent change in price in
the marine transportation sector is
expected to be about 0.1 percent. By
2030, the price of these engines is
expected to increase between 8.4 and
18.7 percent, on average ($13,200 for C1
engines above 800 hp and $48,700 for
C2 engine above 800 hp), depending on
the type of engine, and sales are
expected to decrease by less than 2
percent, on average. The price of vessels
is expected to increase between 1 and
3.6 percent ($16,200 for vessels that use
C1 engines above 800 hp and $141,600
for vessels that use C2 engines above
800 hp) and sales are expected to
decrease by less than 2 percent. The
percent change in price in the marine
transportation is expected to be about
0.6 percent.
With regard to engines below 800 hp,
the market impacts of the program are
expected to be negligible.149 This is
because there are no variable costs
associated with the standards for these
engines. The market impacts associated
with the program are indirect effects
that stem from the impacts on the
marine service markets for the larger
engines that would be subject to direct
compliance costs. Changes in the
equilibrium outcomes in those marine
service markets may lead to reductions
for marine services in other marine
engine and vessel markets, including
the markets for smaller marine diesel
engines and vessels. The result is that in
some years there may be small declines
in the equilibrium price in the markets
for marine diesel engines less than 800
hp. This would occur because an
increase in the price and a decrease in
the quantity of marine transportation
services provided by vessels with
engines above 800 hp that results in a
change in the price of marine
transportation services may have followon effects in other marine markets and
lead to decreases in prices for those
markets. For example, the large vessels
used to provide transportation services
are affected by the rule. Their
compliance costs lead to a higher vessel
price and a reduced demand for those
vessels. This reduced demand indirectly
affects other marine transportation
services that support the larger vessels,
and leads to a decrease in price for those
markets as well.
TABLE V–13.—ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2030 (2005$)
Average
variable engineering
cost per unit
Market
Change in price
Absolute
Change in variable
Percent
Absolute
Percent
2011
Rail Sector
$0
NA
¥$425
NA a
¥0.02
0.1
0
NA a
¥0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
NA a
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
NA a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36,363
35,929
1.9
0
¥0.1
Locomotives .............................................................................................
Transportation Services ...........................................................................
Marine Sector
Engines:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
C1>800 hp ........................................................................................
C2>800 hp ........................................................................................
Other marine .....................................................................................
Vessels:
C1>800 hp ........................................................................................
C2>800 hp ........................................................................................
Other marine .....................................................................................
Transportation Services ...........................................................................
2016
Rail Sector
Locomotives .............................................................................................
149 The market results for engines and vessels
below 800 hp are provided in a Technical Support
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Document that can be found in the docket for this
rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16019
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–13.—ESTIMATED MARKET IMPACTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2030 (2005$)—Continued
Average
variable engineering
cost per unit
Market
Absolute
Change in variable
Percent
Absolute
Percent
NA
NA a
0.1
NA a
¥0.1
18,105
64,735
0
17,330
64,073
0
11.0
24.6
0.00
¥7
¥1
0
¥1.7
¥0.9
0.0
2,980
6,515
0
NA
20,898
188,559
¥1
NA a
1.5
4.8
0.00
0.1
¥9
¥1
¥0
NAa
¥1.7
¥0.9
0.0
¥0.1
50,291
NA
49,087
NA a
2.6
0.4
0
NA a
¥0.2
¥0.2
13,885
49,360
0
13,261
48,692
0
8.4
18.7
0.0
¥6
¥1
0
¥1.4
¥0.9
0.0
2,979
6,516
0
NA
16,155
141,563
¥4
NA a
1.1
3.6
0.0
0.6
¥8
¥1
¥2
NA a
¥1.5
¥0.9
0.0
¥0.3
Transportation Services ...........................................................................
Marine
Engines:
C1>800 hp ........................................................................................
C2>800 hp ........................................................................................
Other marine .....................................................................................
Vessels:
C1>800 hp ........................................................................................
C2>800 hp ........................................................................................
Other marine .....................................................................................
Transportation Services ...........................................................................
Change in price
Sector a
2030
Rail Sector
Locomotives .............................................................................................
Transportation Services ...........................................................................
Marine Sector
Engines:
C1>800 hp ........................................................................................
C2>800 hp ........................................................................................
Other marine .....................................................................................
Vessels:
C1>800 hp ...............................................................................................
C2>800 hp ...............................................................................................
Other marine .....................................................................................
Transportation Services ...........................................................................
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
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Marine operating costs
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Marine engine
and vessel
costs
Rail operating
costs
Rail remanuf.
costs
Rail new locomotive costs
$25.0
$25.0
$25.0
$25.0
$86.0
$41.2
$41.2
$41.2
$74.1
$48.6
$44.9
$33.9
$34.2
$34.5
$0.0
$1.3
$1.4
$3.8
$7.9
$9.7
$12.0
$12.6
$14.9
$19.0
$32.7
$44.6
$56.5
$68.5
$0.0
$56.7
$33.2
$51.5
$96.9
$74.3
$62.4
$40.0
$29.1
$55.5
$39.3
$41.9
$36.7
$12.9
$3.2
$3.2
$3.2
$7.3
$10.8
$12.3
$12.3
$16.9
$48.8
$55.3
$66.5
$67.9
$61.9
$64.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$2.8
$5.6
$14.8
$23.9
$36.0
$48.0
$60.0
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Total
$28.2
$86.1
$62.7
$87.5
$201.6
$137.5
$127.9
$113.5
$172.5
$193.1
$207.3
$224.3
$237.4
$239.9
Total social
costs
$28.2
$86.1
$62.7
$87.5
$201.5
$137.5
$127.9
$113.5
$172.5
$192.6
$206.7
$223.9
$236.9
$239.5
16020
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–14.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENGINEERING AND SOCIAL COSTS, THROUGH 2040 (2005)—Continued
Engineering costs
Year
Rail operating
costs
Rail remanuf.
costs
Rail new locomotive costs
$34.8
$35.1
$35.4
$35.7
$35.9
$36.2
$33.6
$33.9
$34.2
$34.5
$34.8
$35.1
$35.4
$35.7
$36.0
$36.4
$36.7
$37.0
$37.3
$37.7
$80.8
$93.6
$106.7
$120.1
$133.8
$147.7
$161.5
$175.5
$189.4
$203.3
$217.1
$231.1
$244.9
$258.7
$272.4
$285.8
$299.2
$312.0
$324.4
$336.3
$14.9
$37.4
$83.2
$72.0
$76.5
$63.2
$64.6
$80.3
$81.8
$81.2
$81.4
$77.2
$133.5
$142.6
$150.1
$143.2
$145.9
$148.8
$152.0
$155.0
$66.2
$68.1
$69.8
$70.8
$72.5
$73.5
$74.7
$75.6
$76.3
$76.8
$77.6
$78.5
$78.9
$79.6
$79.8
$77.5
$75.8
$73.9
$71.8
$69.5
$268.7
$318.1
$390.8
$406.0
$437.9
$451.2
$476.3
$518.2
$544.9
$568.3
$592.1
$610.9
$689.2
$720.1
$748.8
$759.7
$780.3
$799.6
$818.0
$834.7
$268.2
$317.6
$390.2
$405.4
$437.2
$450.4
$475.5
$517.3
$544.0
$567.3
$591.1
$609.8
$688.0
$718.8
$747.4
$758.3
$778.8
$798.1
$816.4
$833.2
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................
$6,907.8
$3,107.7
$3,938.7
$2,175.5
$6,896.8
$3,103.2
$3,932.6
$2,172.5
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
.............................
2040
2040
2030
2030
NPV
NPV
NPV
NPV
at
at
at
at
3% a,b
7% a,b
3% a,b
7% a,b
Total social
costs
Marine engine
and vessel
costs
Marine operating costs
$72.0
$83.9
$95.7
$107.5
$119.1
$130.6
$141.9
$153.0
$163.3
$172.6
$181.2
$189.0
$196.4
$203.6
$210.4
$216.9
$222.7
$227.9
$232.4
$236.3
Total
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
Stakeholder group
Surplus
change
2016
Percent
Surplus
change
Percent
Locomotives
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Locomotive producers .....................................................................................
Rail transportation service providers ...............................................................
Rail transportation service consumers ............................................................
¥$11.1
¥$47.5
¥$57.0
5.5
23.6
28.3
¥$13.4
¥$52.9
¥$63.5
7.0
27.5
33.0
Total locomotive sector ............................................................................
¥$115.6
57.3
¥$129.7
67.3
¥$86.0
¥$22.8
¥$27.8
¥$35.4
42.7
........................
........................
........................
¥$0.9
¥$0.7
¥$0.2
¥$0.0
0.5
Marine
Marine engine producers .................................................................................
C1 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
C2 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
Other marine .............................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16021
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–15.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SOCIAL COSTS FOR 2011, 2016, 2020, 2030—Continued
[2005$, $million]
2011
Stakeholder group
Surplus
change
2016
Percent
Surplus
change
Percent
Marine vessel producers .................................................................................
C1 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
C2 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
Other marine .............................................................................................
Recreational and fishing vessel consumers .............................................
Marine transportation service providers ..........................................................
Marine transportation service consumers ........................................................
¥$0
¥$0
¥$0
¥$0
¥$0
¥$0
¥$0
0.0
........................
........................
........................
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥$18.0
¥$13.6
¥$4.4
¥$0.0
¥$9.6
¥$15.6
¥$18.7
5.0
8.1
9.7
Total marine sector ...................................................................................
¥$86.0
42.7
¥$62.9
32.7
Total Program ....................................................................................
¥$201.5
........................
¥$192.6
2020
Stakeholder group
Surplus
change
9.3
2030
Percent
Surplus
change
Percent
Locomotives
Locomotive producers .....................................................................................
Rail transportation service providers ...............................................................
Rail transportation service consumers ............................................................
¥$0.7
¥$65.8
¥$78.9
0.3
27.5
32.9
¥$1.8
¥$163.2
¥$195.9
0.3
28.8
34.5
Total locomotive sector ............................................................................
¥$145.3
60.7
¥$360.9
63.6
Marine engine producers .................................................................................
C1 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
C2 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
Other marine .............................................................................................
Marine vessel producers .................................................................................
C1 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
C2 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
Other marine .............................................................................................
Recreational and fishing vessel consumers .............................................
Marine transportation service providers ..........................................................
Marine transportation service consumers ........................................................
¥$0.8
¥$0.6
¥$0.2
¥$0.0
¥$10.1
¥$7.8
¥$2.3
¥$0.1
¥$7.8
¥$34.3
¥$41.2
0.3
........................
........................
........................
4.2
........................
........................
........................
3.3
14.3
17.2
¥$0.9
¥$0.7
¥$0.2
¥$0.0
¥$8.2
¥$6.4
¥$1.6
¥$0.1
¥$8.5
¥$85.8
¥$103.0
0.2
1.5
15.1
18.2
Total marine sector ...................................................................................
¥$94.1
39.3
¥$206.5
36.4
Total Program ...........................................................................................
¥$239.5
100.0
¥$567.3
100.0
Marine
Table V–16 provides additional detail
about the sources of surplus changes, for
2020 when the per unit compliance
costs are stable. On the marine side, this
table shows that engine and vessel
producers are expected to pass along
much of the engine and vessel
compliance costs to the marine
transportation service providers who
purchase marine vessels. These marine
1.4
transportation service providers, in turn,
are expected to pass some of the costs
to their customers. This is also expected
to be the case in the rail sector.
TABLE V–16.— DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED SURPLUS CHANGES BY MARKET AND STAKEHOLDER FOR 2020
[2005$, million$]
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Total engineering costs
Marine Markets ........................................................................................................................................................
Engine Producers ....................................................................................................................................................
Vessel Producers .....................................................................................................................................................
Engine price changes ..............................................................................................................................................
Equipment cost changes .........................................................................................................................................
Recreational and Fishing Consumers .....................................................................................................................
Engine price changes ..............................................................................................................................................
Equipment cost changes .........................................................................................................................................
Transportation Service Providers ............................................................................................................................
Increased price vessels ...........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Surplus
change
........................
$29.3
$5.2
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$60.0
........................
........................
¥$0.8
¥$10.1
¥$8.1
¥$2.0
¥$7.8
¥$6.2
¥$1.6
¥$34.3
¥$6.9
16022
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–16.— DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED SURPLUS CHANGES BY MARKET AND STAKEHOLDER FOR 2020—Continued
[2005$, million$]
Total engineering costs
Surplus
change
Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................
Users of Transportation Service ..............................................................................................................................
Increased price vessels ...........................................................................................................................................
Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................
Rail Markets .............................................................................................................................................................
Locomotive Producers .............................................................................................................................................
Rail Service Providers .............................................................................................................................................
Increased price new locomotives ............................................................................................................................
Remanufacturing costs ............................................................................................................................................
Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................
Users of Rail Transportation Service ......................................................................................................................
Increased price new locomotives ............................................................................................................................
Remanufacturing costs ............................................................................................................................................
Operating costs ........................................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
$64.0
$81.4
........................
$9.5
$63.6
........................
........................
........................
........................
¥$27.4
¥$41.2
¥$8.2
¥$32.9
........................
¥$0.7
¥$65.8
¥$28.8
¥$8.1
¥$28.9
¥$78.9
¥$34.6
¥$9.7
¥$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
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.
rate, the present value of the net social
costs through 2040 is estimated to be
$3.1 billion (2005$).
Table V–17 shows the distribution of
total surplus losses for the program from
2006 through 2040. This table shows
that the rail sector is expected to bear
about 65 percent of the total program
social costs through 2040, and that most
of the costs are expected to be borne by
TABLE V–17.—ESTIMATED NET SOCIAL COSTS THROUGH 2040 BY STAKEHOLDER
($million, 2005$)
Surplus
change NPV
3%
Stakeholder groups
Percent of
total surplus
Surplus
change NPV
7%
Percent of
total surplus
Locomotives
Locomotive producers .....................................................................................
Rail transportation service providers ...............................................................
Rail transportation service consumers ............................................................
$92.8
$1,988.8
$2,386.4
1.3%
28.8%
34.6%
$63.5
$878.1
$1,053.7
2.0%
28.3%
33.9%
Total locomotive sector ............................................................................
$4,468.1
64.8%
$1,995.4
64.4%
Marine engine producers .................................................................................
C1 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
C2 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
Other marine .............................................................................................
Marine vessel producers .................................................................................
C1 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
C2 > 800 hp ..............................................................................................
Other marine .............................................................................................
Recreational and fishing vessel consumers .............................................
Marine transportation service providers ..........................................................
Marine transportation service consumers ........................................................
$313.3
$102.1
$112.4
$98.7
$143.8
$110.1
$32.4
$1.3
$110.0
$846.2
$1,015.4
4.5%
........................
........................
........................
2.1%
........................
........................
........................
1.6%
12.3%
14.7%
$242.3
$73.9
$84.4
$84.0
$71.3
$54.3
$16.5
$0.5
$51.0
$338.2
$405.9
7.8%
1.6%
10.9%
13.1%
Total marine sector ...................................................................................
$2,428.7
35.2%
$1,107.7
35.7%
Total Program ....................................................................................
$6,896.8
........................
$3,103.1
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Marine
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.3%
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(7) What Are the Significant Limitations
of the Economic Impact Analysis?
Every economic impact analysis
examining the market and social welfare
impacts of a regulatory program is
limited to some extent by limitations in
model capabilities, deficiencies in the
economic literatures with respect to
estimated values of key variables
necessary to configure the model, and
data gaps. In this EIA, there three
potential sources of uncertainty: (1)
Uncertainty resulting from the way the
EIM is designed, particularly from the
use of a partial equilibrium model; (2)
uncertainty resulting from the values for
key model parameters, particularly the
price elasticity of supply and demand;
and (3) uncertainty resulting from the
values for key model inputs,
particularly baseline equilibrium price
and quantities.
Uncertainty associated with the
economic impact model structure arises
from the use of a partial equilibrium
approach, the use of the national level
of analysis, and the assumption of
perfect competition. These features of
the model mean it does not take into
account impacts on secondary markets
or the general economy, and it does not
consider regional impacts. The results
may also be biased to the extent that
firms have some control over market
prices, which would result in the
modeling over-estimating the impacts
on producers of affected goods and
services.
The values used for the price
elasticities of supply and demand are
critical parameters in the EIM. The
values of these parameters have an
impact on both the estimated change in
price and quantity produced expected
as a result of compliance with the
proposed standards and on how the
burden of the social costs will be shared
among producer and consumer groups.
In selecting the values to use in the EIM
it is important that they reflect the
behavioral responses of the industries
under analysis.
Where possible, the EIA relies on
published price elasticities of supply
and demand. For those cases where
there are no published sources, we
estimated these parameters (see
Appendix 7F of the RIA prepared for
this rule). The methods used for
estimation include a production fuction
approach using data at the industry
level (engines and recreational vessels)
and a calibration approach (locomotiove
supply). These methods were chosen
because of limitations with the available
data, which was limited to industrylevel data. However, the use of aggregate
industry level data may not be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16023
VI. Benefits
A. Overview
This section presents our analysis of
the health and environmental benefits
that can be expected to occur as a result
of the proposed locomotive and marine
engine standards throughout the period
from initial implementation through
2030. Nationwide, the engines that are
subject to the proposed emission
standards in this rule are a significant
source of mobile source air pollution.
The proposed standards will reduce
exposure to NOX and direct PM
emissions and help avoid a range of
adverse health effects associated with
ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels. In
addition, the proposed standards will
help reduce exposures to diesel PM
exhaust, various gaseous hydrocarbons
and air toxics. As described below, the
reductions in ozone and PM from the
proposed standards are expected to
result in significant reductions in
premature deaths and other serious
human health effects, as well as other
important public health and welfare
effects.
To estimate the net benefits of the
proposed standards, we use the
estimated costs presented in section V
and sophisticated air quality and benefit
modeling tools. The benefit modeling is
based on peer-reviewed studies of air
quality and health and welfare effects
associated with improvements in air
quality and peer-reviewed studies of the
dollar values of those public health and
welfare effects. These methods are
generally consistent with benefits
analyses performed for the recent
analysis of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) standards and the recently
finalized PM NAAQS analysis.152,153
They are described in detail in the RIA
prepared for this rule.
EPA typically quantifies PM- and
ozone-related benefits in its regulatory
impact analyses (RIAs) when possible.
In the analysis of past air quality
regulations, ozone-related benefits have
included morbidity endpoints and
welfare effects such as damage to
commercial crops. EPA has not recently
included a separate and additive
mortality effect for ozone, independent
of the effect associated with fine
particulate matter. For a number of
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 https://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 https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16024
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
reasons, including (1) advice from the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) Health
and Ecological Effects Subcommittee
(HEES) that EPA consider the
plausibility and viability of including an
estimate of premature mortality
associated with short-term ozone
exposure in its benefits analyses and (2)
conclusions regarding the scientific
support for such relationships in EPA’s
2006 Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants (the
CD), EPA is in the process of
determining how to appropriately
characterize ozone-related mortality
benefits within the context of benefits
analyses for air quality regulations. As
part of this process, we are seeking
advice from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) regarding how the
ozone-mortality literature should be
used to quantify the reduction in
premature mortality due to diminished
exposure to ozone, the amount of life
expectancy to be added and the
monetary value of this increased life
expectancy in the context of health
benefits analyses associated with
regulatory assessments. In addition, the
Agency has sought advice on
characterizing and communicating the
uncertainty associated with each of
these aspects in health benefit analyses.
Since the NAS effort is not expected
to conclude until 2008, the agency is
currently deliberating how best to
characterize ozone-related mortality
benefits in its rulemaking analyses in
the interim. For the analysis of the
proposed locomotive and marine
standards, we do not quantify an ozone
mortality benefit. So that we do not
provide an incomplete picture of all of
the benefits associated with reductions
in emissions of ozone precursors, we
have chosen not to include an estimate
of total ozone benefits in the proposed
RIA. By omitting ozone benefits in this
proposal, we acknowledge that this
analysis underestimates the benefits
associated with the proposed standards.
Our analysis, however, indicates that
the rule’s monetized PM2.5 benefits
alone substantially exceed our estimate
of the costs.
The range of benefits associated with
the proposed program are estimated
based on the risk of several sources of
PM-related mortality effect estimates,
along with all other PM non-mortality
related benefits information. These
benefits are presented in Table VI–1.
The benefits reflect two different
sources of information about the impact
of reductions in PM on reduction in the
risk of premature death, including both
the American Cancer Society (ACS)
cohort study and an expert elicitation
study conducted by EPA in 2006. In
order to provide an indication of the
sensitivity of the benefits estimates to
alternative assumptions, in Chapter 6 of
the RIA we present a variety of benefits
estimates based on two epidemiological
studies (including the ACS Study and
the Six Cities Study) and the expert
elicitation. EPA intends to ask the
Science Advisory Board to provide
additional advice as to which scientific
studies should be used in future RIAs to
estimate the benefits of reductions in
PM. These estimates, and all monetized
benefits presented in this section, are in
year 2005 dollars.
TABLE VI–1.—ESTIMATED MONETIZED PM-RELATED HEALTH BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE
ENGINE STANDARDS
Total benefits 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–95th %ile) ........................................................... ($1.0–$10)
($2.1–$27)
Using a 7% discount rate .................................................................................... $4.0+B
$11+B
Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ........................................................... ($1.0–$9.2)
($1.8–$25)
e Morbidity functions from epidemiology literature
PM mortality derived from lower bound and upper bound expert-based result;
Using a 3% discount rate ....................................................................................
Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ...........................................................
Using a 7% discount rate ....................................................................................
Confidence Intervals (5th–95th %ile) ...........................................................
$1.7+B ¥ $12+B
($0.2 ¥ $8.5) ¥ ($2.0 ¥ $27)
$1.6+B ¥ $11+B
($0.2 ¥ $7.8) ¥ ($1.8 ¥ $24)
$4.6+B ¥ $33+B
($1.0 ¥ $23) ¥ ($5.4 ¥ $72)
$4.3+B ¥ $30+B
($1.0 ¥ $21) ¥ ($4.9 ¥ $65)
a Benefits
include avoided cases of mortality, chronic illness, and other morbidity health endpoints.
mortality benefits estimated using an assumed PM threshold of 10 µ/m3. There is uncertainty about which threshold to use and
this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to Section 6.6.1.3 of the
RIA.
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
b PM-related
B. Quantified Human Health and
Environmental Effects of the Proposed
Standards
In this section we discuss the PM2.5
benefits of the proposed standards. We
discuss how these benefits are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16025
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
assumptions used for the air quality
modeling and the final proposed
emission control scenario.
(1) Estimated PM Benefits
To model the PM air quality benefits
of this rule we used the Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model.
CMAQ simulates the numerous physical
and chemical processes involved in the
formation, transport, and deposition of
particulate matter. This model is
commonly used in regional applications
to estimate the PM reductions expected
to occur from a given set of emissions
controls. The meteorological data input
into CMAQ are developed by a separate
model, the Penn State University/
National Center for Atmospheric
Research Mesoscale Model, known as
MM5. The modeling domain covers the
entire 48-State U.S., as modeled in the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).154 The
grid resolution for the PM modeling
domain was 36 x 36 km. More detailed
information is included in the air
quality modeling technical support
document (TSD), which is located in the
docket for this rule.
The modeled ambient air quality data
serves as an input to the Environmental
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
(BenMAP).155 BenMAP is a computer
program developed by EPA that
integrates a number of the modeling
elements used in previous Regulatory
Impact Analyses (e.g., interpolation
functions, population projections,
health impact functions, valuation
functions, analysis and pooling
methods) to translate modeled air
concentration estimates into health
effects incidence estimates and
monetized benefits estimates.
Table VI–2 presents the estimates of
reduced incidence of PM-related health
effects for the years 2020 and 2030,
which are based on the modeled air
quality improvements between a
baseline, pre-control scenario and a
post-control scenario reflecting the
proposed emission control strategy.
Since the publication of CAIR, we
have completed the full-scale expert
elicitation assessing the uncertainty in
the concentration-response function for
PM-related premature mortality.
Consistent with the recommendations of
the National Research Council (NRC)
report ‘‘Estimating the Public Health
Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution
Regulations,’’ 156 we are integrating the
results of this probabilistic assessment
into the main benefits analysis as an
alternative to the epidemiologicallyderived range of mortality incidence
provided by the ACS and Six-cities
cohort studies (Pope et al., 2002 and
Laden et al., 2006). Of the twelve
experts included in the panel of experts,
average premature mortality incidence
derived from eleven of the experts are
larger than the ACS-based estimate. One
expert’s average effect estimate falls
below the ACS-based estimate. Details
on the PM-related mortality incidence
derived from each expert are presented
in the draft RIA.
The use of two sources of PM
mortality reflects two different sources
of information about the impact of
reductions in PM on reduction in the
risk of premature death, including both
the published epidemiology literature
and an expert elicitation study
conducted by EPA in 2006. In 2030,
based on the estimate provided by the
ACS study, we estimate that PM-related
annual benefits would result in 1,500
fewer premature fatalities. When the
range of expert opinion is used, we
estimate between 460 and 4,600 fewer
premature mortalities in 2030. We also
estimate 940 fewer cases of chronic
bronchitis, 3,300 fewer non-fatal heart
attacks, 1,100 fewer hospitalizations (for
respiratory and cardiovascular disease
combined), one million fewer days of
restricted activity due to respiratory
illness and approximately 170,000 fewer
work-loss days. We also estimate
substantial health improvements for
children from reduced upper and lower
respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and
asthma attacks. These results are based
on an assumed cutpoint in the long-term
mortality concentration-response
functions at 10 µg/m3, and an assumed
cutpoint in the short-term morbidity
concentration-response functions at 10
µg/m3. The impact using four alternative
cutpoints (3 µg/m3, 7.5 µg/m3, 12 µg/m3,
and 14 µg/m3) has on PM2.5-related
mortality incidence estimation is
presented in Chapter 6 of the draft RIA.
TABLE VI–2 ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN INCIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE ENGINE STANDARDS a
2020
Health effect ............................................................................................
2030
Mean incidence reduction (5th–95th percentile)
PM-Related Endpoints
570 (220–920)
1,500 (590–
2,400)
Infant, age <1 year—Woodruff et al. 1997 .............................................
Premature Mortality—Derived from Expert Elicitation c d Adult, age
25±Lower and Upper Bound EE Results, Respectively.
1 (1–2)
180–1,700 (0–830)—(870–2,600)
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) ...........................................
370 (68– 670)
Acute myocardial infarction (adults, age 18 andolder) ...........................
1,200 (640–1,700)
Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) e ..........................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Premature Mortality—Derived from Epidemiology Literature b c Adult,
age 30±Range based on ACS cohort study (Pope et al. 2002
130 (65–200)
Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (adults, age >18) f .......................
270 (170–380)
2 (1–4)
460–4,600
(0–2,200)–
(2,300–
6,900)
940 (170–
1,700)
3,300 (1,800–
4,800)
350 (170–
510)
770 (490–
1,100)
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
155 Information on BenMAP, including
downloads of the software, can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ benmodels.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
156 National Research Council (NRC). 2002.
Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed
Air Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16026
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI–2 ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN INCIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE ENGINE STANDARDS a—Continued
2020
Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) ...........
460 (270–650)
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) .....................................................
1,000 (0–2,100)
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) .................................
11,000 (5,400–17,000)
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) .................
8,300 (2,600–14,000)
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) ............................
10,000 (1,100–29,000)
Work loss days (adults, age 18–65) .......................................................
71,000 (62,000–81,000)
Minor restricted-activity days (adults, age 18–65) ..................................
2030
1,000 (620–
1,500)
2,600 (0–
5,300)
28,000
(14,000–
43,000)
21,000
(6,600–
35,000)
26,000
(2,800–
74,000)
170,000
(150,000–
190,000)
1,000,000
(850,000–
1,200,000)
420,000 (360,000–490,000)
a Incidence
b Based
is rounded to two significant digits. PM estimates represent benefits from the proposed standards nationwide.
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 µg/m3. There is uncertainty about which threshold to use and
this may impact the magnitude of the total benefits estimate. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please refer to Chapter 6 of the RIA.
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
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Table VI–3 presents the estimated
monetary value of reductions in the
incidence of health and welfare effects.
Total annual PM-related health benefits
are estimated to be between $4.6 and
$33 billion in 2030, using a three
percent discount rate (or $4.3 and $30
billion assuming a 7 percent discount
rate). This estimate is based on the
opinions of outside experts on PM and
therisk of premature death, alongwith
other non-mortality related benefits
results. When the range of premature
fatalities based on the ACS cohort study
is used, we estimate the total benefits
related to the proposed standards to be
approximately $12 billion in 2030,
using a three percent discount rate (or
$11 assuming a 7 percent discount rate).
All monetized estimates are stated in
2005 dollars. These estimates account
for growth in real gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita between the
present and the years 2020 and 2030. As
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the table indicates, total benefits are
driven primarily by the reduction in
premature fatalities each year, which
accounts for well over 90 percent of
total benefits.
The above estimates of monetized
benefits include only one example of
non-health related benefits. Changes in
the ambient level of PM2.5 are known to
affect the level of visibility in much of
the U.S. Individuals value visibility
both in the places they live and work,
in the places they travel to for
recreational purposes, and at sites of
unique public value, such as at National
Parks. For the proposed standards, we
present the recreational visibility
benefits of improvements in visibility at
86 Class I areas located throughout
California, the Southwest, and the
Southeast. These estimated benefits are
approximately $150 million in 2020 and
$400 million in 2030, as shown in Table
VI–3.
Table VI–3 also indicates with a ‘‘B’’
those additional health and
environmental benefits of the rule that
we were unable to quantify or monetize.
These effects are additive to the estimate
of total benefits, and are related to two
primary sources. First, there are many
human health and welfare effects
associated with PM, ozone, and toxic air
pollutant reductions that remain
unquantified because of current
limitations in the methods or available
data. A full appreciation of the overall
economic consequences of the proposed
standards requires consideration of all
benefits and costs projected to result
from the new standards, not just those
benefits and costs which could be
expressed here in dollar terms. A list of
the benefit categories that could not be
quantified or monetized in our benefit
estimates are provided in Table VI–4.
Second, the CMAQ air quality model
only captures the benefits of air quality
improvements in the 48 states and DC;
benefits for Alaska and Hawaii are not
reflected in the estimate of benefits.
158 Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf.
1997. ‘‘The Relationship Between Selected Causes
of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air
Pollution in the United States.’’ Environmental
Health Perspectives 105(6): 608–612.
159 Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc).
2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Concentration-Response Relationship Between
PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Peer Review Draft.
Prepared for: Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. August.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16027
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE VI–3.—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUE IN REDUCTIONS IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS
[in millions of 2005$]a,b
2020
2030
Estimated mean value of reductions (5th and 95th %ile)
PM2.5-related health effect
Premature mortality—Derived from Epidemiology Studiesc,d,e ...............
Adult, age 30+—ACS study (Pope et al. 2002) ......................................
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate .....................................................................................
Infant Mortality,<1 year —Woodruff et al. 1997 ......................................
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate .....................................................................................
Premature mortality—Derived from Expert Elicitationc,d,e,f .....................
Adult, age 25+—Lower bound EE result ................................................
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate .....................................................................................
Adult, age 25+—Upper bound EE result ................................................
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate .....................................................................................
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) .................................................
Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions ....................................................
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate .....................................................................................
Hospital admissions for respiratory causes ............................................
Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ......................................
Emergency room visits for asthma .........................................................
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) .....................................................
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7–14) .........................................
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, 9–11) .........................................
Asthma exacerbations .............................................................................
Work loss days ........................................................................................
Minor restricted-activity days (MRADs) ...................................................
Recreational Visibility, 86 Class I areas .................................................
Monetized Total—PM-Mortality Derived from ACS Study; Morbidity
Functions.
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate Billion ...........................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Monetized Total—PM-Mortality Derived from Expert Elicitationg; Morbidity Functions.
3% discount rate .....................................................................................
7% discount rate .....................................................................................
...................................................
...................................................
$3,900 ............................................
($500–$8,800) ...............................
$3,700 ............................................
($500–$7,900) ...............................
...................................................
$8 ...................................................
($1–$18) ........................................
$7 ...................................................
($1–$16) ........................................
...................................................
...................................................
$1,200 ............................................
($0–$7,200) ...................................
$1,100 ............................................
($0–$6,500) ...................................
...................................................
$12,000 ..........................................
($1,800–$25,000) ..........................
$11,000 ..........................................
($1,600–$23,000) ..........................
$200 ...............................................
($10–$800) ....................................
........................................................
$123 ...............................................
($32–$270) ....................................
$119 ...............................................
($30–$270) ....................................
$2.7 ................................................
($1.3–$4.0) ....................................
$7.3 ................................................
($4.6–$10) .....................................
$0.16 ..............................................
($0.09–$0.26) ................................
$0.44 ..............................................
($0–$1.2) .......................................
$0.21 ..............................................
($0.07–$0.43) ................................
$0.24 ..............................................
($0.05–$0.59) ................................
$0.53 ..............................................
($0.04–$2.0) ..................................
$11 .................................................
($9.6–$12) .....................................
$12 .................................................
($0.61–$25) ...................................
$150 ...............................................
(na)f ...............................................
...................................................
$10,000
($1,500–$24,000)
$9,400
($1,300–$21,000)
$17
($3–$37)
$15
($2–$33)
$3,300
($0–$20,000)
$3,000
($0–$18,000
$31,000
($4,800–$68,000)
$28,000
($4,400–$62,000)
$500
($26–$2,100)
$330
($80–$730)
$320
($76–$720)
$7.2
($3.6–$11)
$21
($13–$28)
$0.37
($0.20–$0.60)
$1.1
($0–$3.1)
$0.53
($0.18–$1.1)
$0.62
($0.14–$1.5)
$1.4
($0.10–$5.1)
$27
($23–$30)
$29
($1.5–$60)
$400
(na)
$4.4 ................................................
($1.0–$10) .....................................
$4.0 Billion .....................................
($1.0–$9.2) ....................................
...................................................
$12 Billion
($2.1–$27)
$11 Billion
($1.8–$25)
$1.7–$12 Billion .............................
($0.2–$8.5)—($2.0–$27) ...............
$1.6–$11 Billion .............................
($0.2–$7.8)—($1.8–$24) ...............
$4.6–$33 Billion
($1.0–$23)—($5.4–$72)
$4.3–$30 Billion
($1.0–$21)—($4.9–$65)
a Monetary
benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. PM benefits are nationwide.
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 µ/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).
b Monetary
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16028
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
Pollutant/effects
Ozone Health a .....................
Ozone Welfare .....................
PM Health b ..........................
PM Welfare ..........................
Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare.
CO Health ............................
HC/Toxics Health e ...............
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
HC/Toxics Welfare ...............
Effects not included in analysis—changes in:
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
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 (+/¥)
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 (+/¥)
Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas
Soiling and materials damage
Damage to ecosystem functions
Exposure to UVb (+/¥)
Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition
Commercial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition
Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition
Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems
Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition
Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition
Ecosystem functions
Passive fertilization
Behavioral effects
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)
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16029
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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 shortterm exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the expert
elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of short term exposures.
d May result in benefits or disbenefits.
e Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this rule are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act.
D. What Are the Significant Limitations
of the Benefit-Cost Analysis?
Every benefit-cost analysis examining
the potential effects of a change in
environmental protection requirements
is limited to some extent by data gaps,
limitations in model capabilities (such
as geographic coverage), and
uncertainties in the underlying
scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models.
Limitations of the scientific literature
often result in the inability to estimate
quantitative changes in health and
environmental effects, such as potential
increases in premature mortality
associated with increased exposure to
carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the
economics literature often result in the
inability to assign economic values even
to those health and environmental
outcomes which can be quantified.
These general uncertainties in the
underlying scientific and economics
literature, which can lead to valuations
that are higher or lower, are discussed
in detail in the RIA and its supporting
references. Key uncertainties that have a
bearing on the results of the benefit-cost
analysis of the proposed standards
include the following:
• The exclusion of potentially
significant and unquantified benefit
categories (such as health, odor, and
ecological benefits of reduction in air
toxics, ozone, and PM);
• Errors in measurement and
projection for variables such as
population growth;
• Uncertainties in the estimation of
future year emissions inventories and
air quality;
• Uncertainty in the estimated
relationships of health and welfare
effects to changes in pollutant
concentrations including the shape of
the C–R function, the size of the effect
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the
many components of the PM mixture;
• Uncertainties in exposure
estimation; and
• Uncertainties associated with the
effect of potential future actions to limit
emissions.
As Table VI–3 indicates, total benefits
are driven primarily by the reduction in
premature fatalities each year. Some key
assumptions underlying the premature
mortality estimates include the
following, which may also contribute to
uncertainty:
• Inhalation of fine particles is
causally associated with premature
death at concentrations near those
experienced by most Americans on a
daily basis. Although biological
mechanisms for this effect have not yet
been completely established, the weight
of the available epidemiological,
toxicological, and experimental
evidence supports an assumption of
causality. The impacts of including a
probabilistic representation of causality
were explored in the expert elicitationbased results of the recently published
PM NAAQS RIA. Consistent with that
analysis, we discuss the implications of
these results in the draft RIA for the
proposed standards.
• All fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally
potent in causing premature mortality.
This is an important assumption,
because PM produced via transported
precursors emitted from locomotive and
marine engines may differ significantly
from PM precursors released from
electric generating units and other
industrial sources. However, no clear
scientific grounds exist for supporting
differential effects estimates by particle
type.
• The C–R function for fine particles
is approximately linear within the range
of ambient concentrations under
consideration (above the assumed
threshold of 10 µg/m3). Thus, the
estimates include health benefits from
reducing fine particles in areas with
varied concentrations of PM, including
both regions that may be in attainment
with PM2.5 standards and those that are
at risk of not meeting the standards.
Despite these uncertainties, we
believe this benefit-cost analysis
provides a conservative estimate of the
estimated economic benefits of the
proposed standards in future years
because of the exclusion of potentially
significant benefit categories.
Acknowledging benefits omissions and
uncertainties, we present a best estimate
of the total benefits based on our
interpretation of the best available
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
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
scientific literature and methods
supported by EPA’s technical peer
review panel, the Science Advisory
Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee
(SAB–HES). EPA has also addressed
many of the comments made by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in
a September 26, 2002 report on its
review of the Agency’s methodology for
analyzing the health benefits of
measures taken to reduce air pollution
in our analysis of the final PM
NAAQS.160 The analysis of the
proposed standards incorporates this
most recent work to the extent possible.
E. Benefit-Cost Analysis
In estimating the net benefits of the
proposed standards, the appropriate
cost measure is ‘social costs.’ Social
costs represent the welfare costs of a
rule to society. These costs do not
consider transfer payments (such as
taxes) that are simply redistributions of
wealth. Table VI–5 contains the
estimates of monetized benefits and
estimated social welfare costs for the
proposed rule and each of the proposed
control programs. The annual social
welfare costs of all provisions of this
proposed rule are described more fully
in section V of this preamble.161
The results in Table VI–5 suggest that
the 2020 monetized benefits of the
proposed standards are greater than the
expected social welfare costs.
Specifically, the annual benefits of the
total program would be $4.4 + B billion
annually in 2020 using a three percent
discount rate (or $4.2 billion assuming
a 7 percent discount rate), compared to
estimated social costs of approximately
$250 million in that same year. These
benefits are expected to increase to $12
+ B billion annually in 2030 using a
three percent discount rate (or $11
billion assuming a 7 percent discount
rate), while the social costs are
estimated to be approximately $600
million. Though there are a number of
health and environmental effects
associated with the proposed standards
that we are unable to quantify or
monetize (represented by ‘‘+B’’; see
Table VI–4), the benefits of the proposed
standards far outweigh the projected
costs. When we examine the benefit-toexplanation of the difference. The estimated social
costs of the program will be updated for the final
rule.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16030
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
cost comparison for the rule standards
separately, we also find that the benefits
of the specific engine standards far
outweigh their projected costs.
TABLE VI–5.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LOCOMOTIVE AND MARINE
ENGINE STANDARDS
(Millions, 2005$)a
Description
2020
Estimated Social Costs b .........................................................................................................................................
Locomotive .......................................................................................................................................................
Marine ...............................................................................................................................................................
Total Social Costs .....................................................................................................................................
Estimated Health Benefits of the ProposedStandardsc d e ......................................................................................
Locomotive .......................................................................................................................................................
3 percent discount rate .............................................................................................................................
7 percent discount rate .............................................................................................................................
Marine ...............................................................................................................................................................
3 percent discount rate .............................................................................................................................
7 percent discount rate .............................................................................................................................
Total Benefits ...........................................................................................................................................................
3 percent discount rate .....................................................................................................................................
7 percent discount rate .....................................................................................................................................
Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits—Total Costs) .................................................................................................
3 percent discount rate .....................................................................................................................................
7 percent discount rate .....................................................................................................................................
2030
$150
100
250
$380
220
605
2,300+B
2,100+B
4,700+B
4,300+B
2,100+B
1,900+B
7,100+B
$6,400+B
4,400+B
4,000+B
12,000+B
11,000+B
4,150+B
3,750+B
11,000+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.
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.
b The
A. Summary of Alternatives
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
VII. Alternative Program Options
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.
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. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(1) Alternatives Regarding Timing,
Scope
(a) Alternative 1: Exclusion of
Locomotive Remanufacturing
Alternative 1 examines the potential
impacts of the locomotive
remanufacturing program by excluding
it from the analysis (see section
III.C.(1)(a)(i) for more details on the
remanufacturing standards). Compared
to the primary program, this analysis
shows that through 2040 the locomotive
remanufacturing program by itself
would reduce PM2.5 emissions by 65,000
tons NPV 3% (35,000 tons NPV 7%) and
NOX emissions by nearly 690,000 tons
NPV 3% (400,000 tons NPV 7%) at a
cost of $800 million NPV 3% ($530
million NPV 7%). The monetized health
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
conclude that introducing Tier 4 a year
earlier is not feasible. We have included
this alternative analysis here because of
the strong consideration we have given
it, and to provide commenters with an
opportunity to comment on the timing
of the Tier 4 standards within the
context of the additional benefits that
such a pull ahead could realize. Our
analysis suggests that introducing Tier 4
one year earlier than our proposal could
reduce emissions by an additional 9,000
tons of PM2.5 NPV 3% (5,000 tons NPV
7%) and 420,000 tons of NOX NPV 3%
(210,000 tons NPV 7%) through 2040.
We are unable to make an accurate
estimate of the cost for such an
approach since we do not believe it to
be feasible at this time. However, we
have reported a cost in the summary
table reflecting the same cost estimation
method we have used for our primary
case and have denoted unestimated
additional costs as ‘C’. These additional
unestimated costs would include costs
for additional engine test cells,
engineering staff, and engineering
facilities necessary to introduce Tier 4
one year earlier. While we are unable to
conclude that this alternative is feasible
at this time, we request comment on
that aspect of this alternative including
what additional costs might be incurred
in order to have Tier 4 start one year
earlier.
(c) Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in
2013
Alternative 3 most closely reflects the
program we described in our Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
whereby we would set new
aftertreatment based emission standards
as soon as possible. In this case, we
believe the earliest that such standards
could logically be started is in 2013 (3
months after the introduction of 15 ppm
ULSD in this sector). Alternative 3
eliminates our proposed Tier 3
standards and locomotive
remanufacturing standards, while
pulling the Tier 4 standards ahead to
2013 for all portions of the Tier 4
program. As with alternative 2, we are
concerned that it may not be feasible to
introduce Tier 4 technologies on
locomotive and marine diesel engines
earlier than the proposal specifies.
However, eliminating the technical
work necessary to develop the Tier 3
and locomotive remanufacturing
programs would certainly go a long way
towards making such an approach
possible. This alternative would
actually result in substantially higher
PM emissions than our primary case
although it would provide additional
reductions in NOX emissions. Through
2040 this alternative would decrease
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PM2.5 reductions by more than 60,000
NPV 3% tons (31,000 NPV 7%) while
only adding approximately 180,000
additional tons NPV 3% (100,000 NPV
7%) of NOX reductions. As a result in
2030 alone, this alternative realizes
approximately $0.6 billion less at a 3%
DR ($0.5 billion less at a 7% DR) in
public health and welfare benefits than
does our proposal. As was the case with
alternative 2, we have used the same
cost estimation approach for this
alternative as that of our proposal, and
have denoted the unestimated costs that
are necessary to accelerate the
development of Tier 4 technologies with
a ‘C’ in the summary tables. While
alternative 3 could have been
considered the Agency’s leading option
going into this rulemaking process, our
review of the technical challenges
necessary to introduce Tier 4
technologies and the substantial
additional benefits that a more
comprehensive solution can provide has
lead us to drop this approach in favor
of the comprehensive proposal we have
laid out today.
(d) Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4
Alternative 4 would eliminate the
Tier 4 standards and retain the Tier 3
and locomotive remanufacturing
requirements. This alternative allows us
to consider the value of combining the
Tier 3 and locomotive remanufacturing
standards together as one program, and
conversely, allows us to see the
additional benefits gained when
combining them with the Tier 4
standards. As a stand-alone alternative,
the combined Tier 3 and locomotive
remanufacturing program is very
attractive, resulting in large emission
reductions through 2040 of 207,000 tons
of PM2.5 NPV 3% (94,000 NPV 7%) and
2,910,000 tons NPV 3% (1,310,000 NPV
7%) of NOX at an estimated cost of $950
million NPV 3% ($650 million NPV 7%)
through the same time period. In 2030
alone, such a program is projected to
realize health and welfare benefits of
$6.2 billion at a 3% DR ($5.7 billion at
a 7% DR). Yet, this alternative falls well
short of the total benefits that our
comprehensive program is expected to
realize. Elimination of Tier 4 would
result in the loss of 108,000 tons NPV
3% (41,000 tons at NPV 7%) of PM2.5
reductions and almost 4,960,000 tons
NPV 3% (1,870,000 tons at NPV 7%) of
NOX reductions as compared to our
proposal through 2040. Through the
addition of the Tier 4 standards, the
estimated health and welfare benefits
are nearly doubled in 2030. As these
alternatives show, each element of our
comprehensive program: The
locomotive remanufacturing program,
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16031
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16032
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
that would apply when they are
remanufactured. The program under
consideration is described below. We
request comment on whether marine
remanufacturing processes should
subject remanufactured engines to
standards under the Act. We also
request comment on any and all aspects
of the program described below,
including the appropriateness of
applying such a program, the standards,
and its certification and compliance
procedures.
(b) Other Marine Engine Remanufacture
Programs
The impact of engines on existing
vessels on ambient air quality was
recognized in MARPOL Annex VI.
Although not specifically referred to as
a remanufacturing program, Regulation
13 contains requirements for existing
engines by requiring that the Regulation
13 NOX limits apply to any engine
above 130 kW that undergoes a major
conversion on or after January 1, 2000.
Major conversion is defined as (i)
replacing the engine with a new engine
(i.e., a repower); (ii) increasing the
maximum continuous rating of the
engine by more than 10 percent; or (iii)
making a substantial modification to the
engine (i.e., a change to the engine that
would alter its emission characteristics).
EPA also recognized the importance
of the inventory contribution from
existing marine engines in our 1999
rule, and we requested comment on
national requirements for existing
marine diesel engines that would be
similar to the locomotive
remanufacturing program.164 While we
noted the potential advantages of such
a program, we did not finalize a
remanufacturing program for existing
marine diesel engines. At the time we
did not have a good understanding of
the differences between the large marine
diesel engines used on tugs, towboats,
crew and supply boats, cargo boats, and
ferries and the smaller engines used on
fishing vessels and patrol boats, and the
lack of uniformity in the
remanufacturing practices used by
owners of smaller engines led us to
conclude that the industry was too
fractured to allow a remanufactured
engine program. However, we
acknowledged the continuing
importance of the contribution of
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 fiveyear period; or (ii) to upgrade a locomotive or
locomotive engine; or (iii) to convert nally
manufactured to use; or (iv) to install a
remanufactured engine or a freshly manufactured
engine into a previously used locomotive.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing marine diesel engines and
noted in section VI of our 1999 rule
(Areas for Future Action) that we would
consider this issue again in the future.
Since we finalized our 1999 rule
many states have continued to express
concern about emissions from existing
marine diesel engines and the impact of
these emissions on their ability to attain
and maintain their air quality goals.
More recently, these states submitted
comments to the ANPRM and letters to
the Agency expressing the need for
controlling existing engines. California
is considering a program that would
require all existing harborcraft
(including tug/tow, ferries, crew,
supply, pilot, work, and other vessels)
to repower with an engine certified to
the then-applicable federal standards.
They are considering effective dates
from 2008 through 2014, depending on
the age of an existing vessel and its size.
Alternatively, California would allow
vessel owners to apply a retrofit
technology that achieves equivalent
emission reductions, or adopt an
alternative compliance plan. The
requirements under consideration for
fishing vessels would be less stringent
and phase in from 2011 through 2018.
We’ve also received information from
vessel owner groups that suggests that
the obstacles to a marine diesel engine
remanufacturing program we noted in
our 1999 rule may be less than critical,
particularly for larger engines.
Specifically, as noted above, many
owners of large marine diesel engines
have their engines rebuilt on a routine
schedule and this maintenance is often
performed by companies that also
remanufacture locomotive engines. In
addition, many owners of marinized
locomotive engines use parts from the
same remanufacturing kits that would
apply to locomotives. Various retrofit
programs, such as the Carl Moyer
program in California, the TERP
program in Texas, and EPA’s retrofit
program, may also make it easier to
identify and install retrofit technologies
on existing marine engines when they
are remanufactured.
(c) Marine Diesel Engines To Be
Included in the Program
The program for remanufactured
marine diesel engines described below
would apply to engines above 800 hp.
We believe this threshold is appropriate
because discussions with various user
groups have indicated that these engines
are most likely to be subject to the
regular remanufacturing events
described above. Engines below 800 hp
are more likely to be installed on vessels
used in fishing or recreational
applications. These vessels often do not
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
have the intense usage as tug/tow/
pushboats, ferries, crew/supply vessels
or cargo vessels. Maintenance is more
likely to be ad hoc and performed only
when there is a problem with the
performance of the engine. These
vessels are also most likely to be owner
operated, and any maintenance that
occurs may be performed by the owner.
In addition, as explained elsewhere in
this preamble, marine diesel engines
above 800 hp are the largest contributors
to national inventories of NOX and PM
emissions. Many of the vessels that use
these engines, including tugs, ferries,
crew and supply boats and cargo
vessels, are in direct competition with
locomotives, providing transportation
services for passengers or bulk goods
and materials.
A random sample of nearly 400
vessels from the Inland River Record
(2006) suggests that the average age of
vessels in that fleet is 30 years (with
vessels built between 1944 and 2004),
and the average horsepower of these
vessels is 1709 hp (with a range of 165
to 9,180 hp). About 72 percent of the
vessels have horsepower at or above 800
hp, with about 75% of those being built
after 1973. In addition, about 60 percent
of the vessels with engines at or above
800 hp have engines derived from
locomotive engines. This suggests that
there are significant emission reductions
that may be achieved by setting
requirements similar to the locomotive
program for these engines.
Although the analysis of this
alternative includes all engines above
800 hp, this remanufacturing program
for marine diesel engines could further
be limited to a subset of engines above
800 hp, for example those manufactured
after 1973. The locomotive
remanufacturing program has this age
limitation, reflecting the fact that older
locomotives are expected to be retired
out of the Class I line haul fleet
relatively soon. However, this may not
make sense in the marine sector as there
are a lot of vessels older than 1973 in
the fleet (about 130 in our sample of
about 400 vessels), and they are not
systematically retired to lower use
applications.
On the other hand, this option could
be expanded to include other marine
diesel engines including those below
800 horsepower. We do not believe this
expansion is appropriate, for the reasons
outlined above (i.e., maintenance may
be more ad hoc and performed by the
owner/operator instead of by a
professional remanufacturer at a
shipyard). However, we request
comment on this issue.
The program described in this
alternative could be further modified by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16033
popular engine models would be made
available first. Because the potential for
emission reductions are expected to be
quite varied across the diverse range of
existing marine diesel engines, we could
consider setting a multi-stepped
emission standard similar to the Urban
Bus program. For example, the program
could set standards based on reductions
of 60%, 40% and 20% with a
requirement that a rebuilder must use a
certified kit meeting the most stringent
of these three standards if available. If
no kit is available meeting the 60%
reduction, then the rebuilder can use
one meeting the 40% reduction, and
similarly, if no kits are available
meeting the 40% or 60% standards,
then the rebuilder can use a kit meeting
the 20% reduction. In this way, engines
which can achieve a 60% reduction are
likely to realize that reduction because
a kit builder will be motivated to
develop a kit meeting the most stringent
standard possible. We request comment
regarding the appropriateness of such an
approach, and were we to adopt such a
structure, the need for greater or less
stratification across the potential
emission standards.
In the second part, which could begin
in 2013, the remanufacturer/owner of a
marine diesel engine identified by the
EPA as a high-sales volume engine
model would have to meet specified
emission requirements when the engine
is remanufactured. Specifically, the
remanufacturer or owner would be
required to use a system certified to
meet the standard; if no certified system
is available, he or she would need to
either retrofit an emission reduction
technology for the engine that
demonstrates at least a 25 percent
reduction or repower (replace the
engine with a new one). The mandatory
use of an available kit is intended to
create a market for kits to help ensure
their development over the initial five
years of the program.
To ensure that the program results in
the expected emission reductions, an
emission threshold could be set as well
such that the retrofit technology would
be required to demonstrate a 25 percent
reduction with emissions not to exceed
0.22 g/kW-hr PM (equivalent to the new
Tier 0/1 PM limit). We believe a
threshold, if one is included, should
focus on PM emissions over NOX
because PM reductions can be
accomplished through the use of
improved engine components, for
example changing cylinder rings or
liners to reduce oil consumption and
PM emissions. We do not believe a NOX
threshold is appropriate because
technologies to reduce NOX may not be
as amenable to a remanufacturing kit
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16034
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
approach. However, we would welcome
comments regarding the need for a
threshold, and the limit at which it
should be set, and the appropriateness
of a NOX standard as well.
The second part of the program is
contingent on EPA developing a list of
high volume marine diesel engines for
which a remanufacture certificate must
be available by 2013. EPA will continue
to work with engine manufactures and
other interested stakeholders to develop
such a list, and seeks comment on the
engine models that should be included.
The goal of this list is to identify those
engine models that occur frequently
enough in the market to justify the
development of a remanufacture kit;
engine models with just a few units in
the population may not be required to
comply with the requirements.
Finally, the second step of the
program could be made subject to a
technical review in 2011. The object of
such a review would be for EPA to
assess the current and future availability
of certified kits and to determine if any
adjustments are necessary for the
program including the effective date of
the mandatory repower requirement and
whether any change in the list of highvolume engine models is warranted due
to new information.
With regard to technological
feasibility, we believe engine
manufacturers would utilize
incremental improvements to existing
engine components. Because such a
remanufactured marine engine program
would parallel our existing
remanufactured locomotive program, we
expect a direct transfer of emissions
control technology from locomotives to
marine engines for similar engines. In
fact, in our discussions with vessel
operators, they indicated that they are
sometimes already using the EPAcertified lower emissions
remanufacturing kits that are currently
on the market to meet our locomotive
remanufacturing program.
Engines that do not have a locomotive
counterpart will in many cases start at
a cleaner baseline than locomotivebased marine engines. Therefore, the
same total reduction that could be
expected from the locomotive
remanufacture kits could not be
expected from these engines. However,
we would expect that similar PM
emissions control technologies would
be used to meet the requirements of the
program. Technologies to achieve PM
reductions include existing low-oilconsumption piston ring-pack designs
and existing closed crankcase systems.
Our discussions with marine diesel
engine manufacturers suggest
reductions of 25 percent with emissions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
not to exceed 0.22 g/kW-hr PM are
feasible. These technologies would
provide significant near-term PM
reductions. Because all of the
aforementioned technologies to reduce
emissions already exist or can be
developed and introduced into the
market within a very short time period,
we believe some of this technology
could be implemented on a limited
basis as early as 2008 on
remanufactured marine engines. We
also believe that these technologies
could be fully implemented in a marine
remanufacturing program by the end of
2012. In addition, it may be possible to
include NOX emission control
technologies in these kits to achieve
greater reductions.
To help ensure the remanufacturer’s
solutions are reasonably priced, the
program could set a limit on the price
the owner/remanufacturer could be
expected to pay for the kit, similar to the
urban bus program. Such a limit may be
necessary because a program that would
require the use of a certified kit may
provide a potential short-term
monopoly for kit certifiers, at least until
other kits are certified. Such a
monopoly environment may create the
potential for kit prices to be unrelated
to actual kit cost. However, unlike the
urban bus program, the diverse nature of
marine diesel engines makes setting a
single cost limit per engine
unreasonable. Instead, we would look to
develop a factor that corresponds to
engine size, power, or emissions. For
example, we could consider setting a
limit based on the PM reduction (the
cost per ton of PM reduced). We could
consider a limit of $45,000 per ton of
PM reduced. This cost is far below the
monetized health and welfare benefits
we have estimated will be realized from
a reduction in diesel PM emissions. We
request comment on such an approach
for setting a reasonable cost threshold.
As in the locomotive remanufacturing
program, anyone could certify a
remanufacturing kit, but only certified
kits may be used to comply with the
requirement. We expect this to be
primarily engine manufacturers or
aftermarket part manufacturers.
However, a fleet owner with several
vessels with the same model engine
could choose to certify a kit, the use of
which would then become mandatory
for all engines of that model, unless
another equivalent kit is also available
for that model. In addition, certification
could be streamlined for kit
manufacturers. We would look to the
Agency’s past practices with the Urban
Bus Program and the Voluntary Retrofit
Verification Program when designing a
certification procedure. However, as in
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the locomotive remanufacture program,
the certifier is deemed to be a
‘‘manufacturer’’ subject to the emission
standards and as such would be subject
to all of the obligations on such an
entity under our primary program,
including warranty, recall, in-use
liability, among others. With regard to
the retrofit requirement, we request
comment on how we could streamline
the certification for these technologies
such that their use will not impose a
larger certification burden on the owner
of the vessel. We welcome comments on
all aspects of the implementation of this
possible remanufacturing program.
The costs and benefits of a program as
outlined above are included in Table
VII–1 and Table VII–2. We estimate that
the compliance costs for the marine
remanufacturing program would be
around $10 million per year in 2030.
Using the benefits transfer approach
from the primary control scenario to
estimate the benefits of these inventory
reductions, the additional monetized
benefits would be expected to be about
$0.3 billion at a 3% DR ($0.3 at a 7%
DR) in 2030.
With regard to benefits, the
application of locomotive
remanufacture kits to similar marine
diesel engines would be expected to
result in similar reductions in PM and
NOX emissions. In some cases, this
could be as much as 60 percent
reduction for PM and 25 percent
reduction for NOX. However, because
many marine diesel engines start at a
cleaner baseline, we would not expect
to accomplish the same reductions from
all engines that would be subject to the
program. Based on a minimal control
case of a 25 percent PM reduction from
existing marine diesel engines above
800 hp, we estimate about an additional
27,000 tons NPV 3% (16,000 tons at
NPV 7%) of PM2.5 reductions, and an
additional 320,000 tons NPV 3%
(220,000 tons at NPV 7%) of NOX
reductions through 2040.
B. Summary of Results
A summary of the five alternatives is
contained in Table VII–1 and Table VII–
2 below. Table VII–1 includes the
expected emission reductions associated
with each alternative, including: the
estimated PM and NOX reductions
through 2040 for each alternative
expressed as a net present value (NPV)
using discounting rates of 3% and 7%.
It also includes the estimated costs
through 2040 associated with each
alternative again expressed at 3% NPV
and 7% NPV. For additional
comparison, Table VII–2 shows the PM
and NOX inventory reductions, costs,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16035
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
and benefits of each alternative
estimated for the year 2030.
TABLE VII–1.—SUMMARY OF INVENTORY AND COSTS AT NPV 3% AND 7%
Alternatives
Standards
Primary Case ..................................................
Alternative 1: Exclusion of Locomotive Remanufacturing.
Alternative 2: Tier 4 Advanced One Year ......
Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in 2013 ........
Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4 .................
Alternative 5: Inclusion of Marine Remanufacturing.
a ‘C’
Estimated
PM2.5 reductions 2006–
2040 NPV 3%
(7%)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Locomotive Remanufacturing .....................
Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................
Tier 4 Long-term standards ........................
Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................
Tier 4 Long-term standards .........................
Locomotive Remanufacturing .....................
Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................
Tier 4 Long-term standards advanced one
year.
• Tier 4 Long-term standards only in 2013 ...
• Locomotive Remanufacturing .....................
• Tier 3 Near-term program ..........................
• Locomotive Remanufacturing ......................
• Tier 3 Near-term program ............................
• Tier 4 Long-term standards .........................
• Addition of Marine Remanufacturing ...........
Estimated
NOX reductions 2006–
2040 NPV 3%
(7%)
Total costs
millions 2006–
2040 NPV 3%
(7%) a
315,000
(135,000)
7,870,000
(3,180,000)
$7,230
($3,230)
250,000
(100,000)
324,000
(140,000)
7,180,000
(2,780,000)
8,290,000
(3,390,000)
$6,430
($2,700)
$7,590+C
($3,440)+C
255,000
(104,000)
207,000
(94,000)
342,000
(151,000)
8,050,000
(3,280,000)
2,910,000
(1,310,000)
8,190,000
(3,400,000)
$7,410+C
($3,220)+C
$950
($650)
$7,650
($3,510)
represents the additional costs necessary to accelerate the introduction of Tier 4 technologies that we are unable to estimate at this time.
TABLE VII–2.—INVENTORY, COSTS AND BENEFITS FOR 2030
2030 PM2.5
Emissions reductions
(tons)
2030 NOX
Emissions reductions
(tons)
2030 Total
costs (millions)
2030 Benefits a b (billions)
PM2.5 only 3%
(7%)
28,000
25,000
28,000
25,000
17,000
29,000
770,000
740,000
790,000
770,000
240,000
770,000
$610
$580
$620
$630
$22
$620
$12 ($11)
$8.8 ($8.0)
$12 ($11)
$11 ($10)
$6.2 ($5.7)
$12 ($11)
Primary Case ...................................................................................................
Alternative 1: Exclusion of Locomotive Remanufacturing ...............................
Alternative 2: Tier 4 Advanced One Year .......................................................
Alternative 3: Tier 4 Exclusively in 2013 .........................................................
Alternative 4: Elimination of Tier 4 ..................................................................
Alternative 5: Inclusion of Marine 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. https://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/
Guidelines.html.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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,
https://www.regulations.gov, or by email. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Assessment and Standards
Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket ID
EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0036. You may
claim information that you submit to
EPA as CBI by marking any part or all
of that information as CBI (if you submit
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16036
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
of the transcript directly with the court
reporter.
D. Comment Period
The comment period for this rule will
end on July 2, 2007.
E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Describe any assumptions that you
used.
• Provide any technical information
and/or data you used that support your
views.
• If you estimate potential burden or
costs, explain how you arrived at your
estimate.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
• Offer alternatives.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
• To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line
on the first page of your response. It
would also be helpful if you provided
the name, date, and Federal Register
citation related to your comments.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically
significant regulatory action’’ because it
is likely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
In addition, EPA prepared an analysis
of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This
analysis is contained in the draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis that was
prepared, and is available in the docket
for this rulemaking and at the docket
internet address listed under ADDRESSES
above.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
16037
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 if less than or equal to: b
Industry
NAICS a Codes
Locomotive:
Manufacturers, remanufacturers and importers of locomotives and
locomotive engines.
Railroad owners and operators ........................................................
333618, 336510 .............................
1,000 employees.
482110, 482111, 482112 ..............
488210 ...........................................
1,500 employees.
500 employees.
$6.5 million annual sales.
333618 ...........................................
336611, 346611 .............................
811310 ...........................................
483 .................................................
336612 ...........................................
1,000 employees.
1,000 employees.
$6.5 million annual sales.
500 employees.
500 employees.
Engine repair and maintenance .......................................................
Marine:
Manufacturers of new marine diesel engines ..................................
Ship and boat building; ship building and repairing ........................
Engine repair and maintenance .......................................................
Water transportation, freight and passenger ...................................
Boat building (watercraft not built in shipyards and typically of the
type suitable or intended for personal use).
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16038
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
The primary feedback we received
from small entities was to continue the
flexibility provisions that we have
provided to small entities in earlier
locomotive and marine diesel
rulemakings; and a number of these
provisions are listed below. Therefore,
we propose to largely continue the
existing flexibility provisions finalized
in the 1998 Locomotive and Locomotive
Engines Rule (April 16,1998; 63 FR
18977); our 1999 Commercial Marine
Diesel Engines Rule (December 29,1999;
64 FR 73299) and our 2002 Recreational
Diesel Marine program (November 8,
2002; 67 FR 68304). For a complete
description of the flexibilities be
proposed in this notice, please refer to
the Certification and Compliance
Program, section IV.A.(14)—Small
Business Provisions.
(a) Transition Flexibilities
(i) Locomotive Sector
• Small locomotive remanufacturers
would be granted a waiver from
production-line and in-use testing for
up to five calendar years after this
proposed program becomes effective.
• Railroads qualifying as small
businesses would be exempt from new
Tier 0, 1, and 2 remanufacturing
requirements for locomotives in their
existing fleets.
• Railroads qualifying as small
businesses would continue being
exempt from the in-use testing program.
(ii) Marine Sector
• Post-manufacture marinizers and
small-volume manufacturers (annual
worldwide production of fewer than
1,000 engines) would be allowed to
group all engines into one engine family
based on the worst-case emitter.
• Small-volume manufacturers
producing engines less than or equal to
800 hp (600 kW) would be exempted
from production-line and deterioration
testing (assigned deterioration factors)
for Tier 3 standards.
• Post-manufacture marinizers
qualifying as small businesses and
producing engines less than or equal to
800 hp (600 kW) would be permitted to
delay compliance with the Tier 3
standards by one model year.
• Post-manufacture marinizers
qualifying as small businesses and
producing engines less than or equal to
800 hp (600 kW) could delay
compliance with the Not-to-Exceed
requirements for Tier 3 standards by up
to three model years.
• Marine engine dressers (modify
base engine without affecting the
emission characteristics of the engine)
would be exempted from certification
and compliance requirements.
• Post-manufacture marinizers, smallvolume manufacturers, and small-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no federal
mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the
provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on
any of these governmental entities.
Nothing in the rule would significantly
or uniquely affect small governments.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains federal mandates that may
result in expenditures of more than
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
$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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16039
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16040
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1042
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential
business information, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling,
Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1065
Confidential business information,
Penalties, Research, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 1068
Confidential business information,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
Dated: March 1, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 92—CONTROL OF AIR
POLLUTION FROM LOCOMOTIVES
AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 92
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.
2. Section 92.1 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) introductory text and
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 92.1
Applicability.
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b),
(d) and (e) of this section, the provisions
of this part apply to manufacturers,
remanufacturers, owners and operators
of:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The provisions of this part do not
apply for locomotives that are subject to
the emissions standards of 40 CFR part
1033.
3. Section 92.12 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:
§ 92.12
Interim provisions.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
for locomotives and locomotive engines
that become new on or after January 1,
2002.
(4) For locomotives and locomotive
engines that are covered by a small
business certificate of conformity, the
requirements of Subpart G of this part
(i.e., in-use testing) only apply for
locomotives and locomotive engines
that become new on or after January 1,
2007. We will also not require small
remanufacturers to perform any in-use
testing prior to January 1, 2013.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Diesel test fuels. Manufacturers and
remanufacturers may use LSD or ULSD
test fuel to certify to the standards of
this part, instead of the otherwise
specified test fuel, provided PM
emissions are corrected as described in
this paragraph (i). Measure your PM
emissions and determine your cycleweighted emission rates as specified in
subpart B of this part. If you test using
LSD or ULSD, add 0.07 g/bhp-hr to
these weighted emission rates to
determine your official emission result.
(j) Subchapter U provisions. For
model years 2008 through 2012, certain
locomotives will be subject to the
requirements of this part 92 while
others will be subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR subchapter U.
This paragraph (j) describes allowances
for manufacturers or remanufacturers to
ask for flexibility in transitioning to the
new regulations.
(1) You may ask to use a combination
of the test procedures of this part and
those of 40 CFR part 1033. We will
approve your request only if you show
us that it does not affect your ability to
show compliance with the applicable
emission standards. Generally this
requires that the combined procedures
would result in emission measurements
at least as high as those that would be
measured using the procedures
specified in this part. Alternatively, you
may demonstrate that the combined
effects of the procedures is small
relative to your compliance margin (the
degree to which your locomotives are
below the applicable standards).
(2) You may ask to comply with the
administrative requirements of 40 CFR
part 1033 and 1068 instead of the
equivalent requirements of this part.
4. Section 92.208 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 92.208
Certification.
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
PART 94—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM MARINE COMPRESSIONIGNITION ENGINES
5. The authority citation for part 94
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.
6. Section 94.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
§ 94.1
Applicability.
(b) * * *
(3) Marine engines subject to the
standards of 40 CFR part 1042.
*
*
*
*
*
7. In § 94.2, paragraph (b) is amended
by adding definitions for ‘‘Nonroad’’
and ‘‘Nonroad engine’’ in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
§ 94.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Nonroad means relating to nonroad
engines, or vessels, or equipment that
includes nonroad engines.
Nonroad engine has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1068.30. In general, this
means all internal-combustion engines
except motor vehicle engines, stationary
engines, engines used solely for
competition, or engines used in aircraft.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Section 94.12 is amended by
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 94.12
(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
PO 00000
from a development data engine, and
any other information required or
obtained by EPA, the Administrator
determines that the application is
complete and that the engine family
meets the requirements of the Act and
this part, he/she will issue a certificate
of conformity with respect to such
engine family except as provided by
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The
certificate of conformity is valid for each
engine family starting with the
indicated effective date, but it is not
valid for any production after December
31 of the model year for which it is
issued (except as specified in § 92.12).
The certificate of conformity is valid
upon such terms and conditions as the
Administrator deems necessary or
appropriate to ensure that the
production engines covered by the
certificate will meet the requirements of
the Act and of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
This paragraph (j) describes allowances
for manufacturers to ask for flexibility in
transitioning to the new regulations.
(1) You may ask to use a combination
of the test procedures of this part and
those of 40 CFR part 1033. We will
approve your request only if you show
us that it does not affect your ability to
show compliance with the applicable
emission standards. Generally this
requires that the combined procedures
would result in emission measurements
at least as high as those that would be
measured using the procedures
specified in this part. Alternatively, you
may demonstrate that the combined
effects of the procedures is small
relative to your compliance margin (the
degree to which your locomotive are
below the applicable standards).
(2) You may ask to comply with the
administrative requirements of 40 CFR
part 1033 and 1068 instead of the
equivalent requirements of this part.
9. Section 94.108 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 94.108
Test fuels.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Correction for sulfur. (1) High
sulfur fuel. (i) Particulate emission
measurements from Category 1 or
Category 2 engines without exhaust
aftertreatment obtained using a diesel
fuel containing more than 0.40 weight
percent sulfur may be adjusted to a
sulfur content of 0.40 weight percent.
(ii) Adjustments to the particulate
measurement for using high sulfur fuel
shall be made using the following
equation:
PMadj = PM¥[BSFC *0.0917 *(FSF–
0.0040)]
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Where:
PMadj = Adjusted measured PM level [g/kWhr].
PM = Measured weighted PM level [g/KWhr].
BSFC = Measured brake specific fuel
consumption [g/KW-hr].
FSF = Fuel sulfur weight fraction.
(2) Low sulfur fuel. (i) Particulate
emission measurements from Category 1
or Category 2 engines without exhaust
aftertreatment obtained using diesel fuel
containing less than 0.03 weight percent
sulfur may be adjusted to a sulfur
content of 0.20 weight percent.
(ii) Adjustments to the particulate
measurement for using ultra low sulfur
fuel shall be made using the following
equation:
PMadj = PM+[BSFC *0.0917
*(0.0020¥FSF)]
Where:
PMadj = Adjusted measured PM level [g/
kW-hr].
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PM = Measured weighted PM level [g/KWhr].
BSFC = Measured brake specific fuel
consumption [g/KW-hr].
FSF = Fuel sulfur weight fraction.
*
*
*
*
*
10. Section 94.208 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 94.208
Certification.
(a) If, after a review of the application
for certification, test reports and data
acquired from an engine or from a
development data engine, and any other
information required or obtained by
EPA, the Administrator determines that
the application is complete and that the
engine family meets the requirements of
the Act and this part, he/she will issue
a certificate of conformity with respect
to such engine family, except as
provided by paragraph (c)(3) of this
section. The certificate of conformity is
valid for each engine family starting
with the indicated effective date, but it
is not valid for any production after
December 31 of the model year for
which it is issued. The certificate of
conformity is valid upon such terms and
conditions as the Administrator deems
necessary or appropriate to ensure that
the production engines covered by the
certificate will meet the requirements of
the Act and of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Section 94.209 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 94.209 Special provisions for postmanufacture marinizers and small-volume
manufacturers.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) Broader engine families. Instead of
the requirements of § 94.204, an engine
family may consist of any engines all of
a manufacturers engines within a given
category. This does not change any of
the requirements of this part for
showing that an engine family meets
emission standards. To be eligible to use
the provisions of this paragraph (a), the
manufacturer must demonstrate one of
the following:
*
*
*
*
*
12. A new part 1033 is added to
subchapter U of chapter I to read as
follows:
PART 1033—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM LOCOMOTIVES
Sec.
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
1033.1 Applicability
1033.5 Exemptions and exclusions.
1033.10 Organization of this part.
1033.15 Do any other regulation parts apply
to me?
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16041
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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16042
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Subpart G—Special Compliance Provisions
1033.601 General compliance provisions.
1033.610 Small railroad provisions.
1033.615 Voluntarily subjecting
locomotives to the standards of this part.
1033.620 Hardship provisions for
manufacturers and remanufacturers.
1033.625 Design certification for nonlocomotive-specific engines.
1033.630 Staged-assembly exemption.
1033.640 Provisions for repowered and
refurbished locomotives.
1033.650 Incidental use exemption for
Canadian and Mexican locomotives.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification.
1033.701 General provisions.
1033.705 Calculate emission credits.
1033.710 Averaging emission credits.
1033.715 Banking emission credits.
1033.720 Trading emission credits.
1033.722 Transferring emission credits.
1033.725 Requirements for your application
for certification.
1033.730 ABT reports.
1033.735 Required records.
1033.740 Credit restrictions.
1033.745 Compliance with the provisions
of this subpart.
1033.750 Changing a locomotive’s FEL at
remanufacture.
Subpart I—Requirements for Owners and
Operators
1033.801 Applicability.
1033.805 Remanufacturing requirements.
1033.810 In-use testing program.
1033.815 Maintenance, operation, and
repair.
1033.820 In-use locomotives.
1033.825 Refueling requirements.
Subpart J—Definitions and Other Reference
Information
1033.901 Definitions.
1033.905 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
1033.920 How to request a hearing.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart A—Overview and Applicability
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.1
Applicability.
The regulations in this part 1033
apply for all new locomotives and all
locomotives containing a new
locomotive engine, except as provided
in § 1033.5.
(a) Standards begin to apply each time
a locomotive or locomotive engine is
originally manufactured or otherwise
becomes new (defined in § 1033.901).
The requirements of this part continue
to apply as specified after locomotives
cease to be new.
(b) Standards apply to the locomotive.
However, in certain cases, the
manufacturer/remanufacturer is allowed
to test a locomotive engine instead of a
complete locomotive, such as for
certification.
(c) Standards apply based on the year
in which the locomotive was originally
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
manufactured. The date of original
manufacture is generally the date on
which assembly is completed for the
first time. For example, all locomotives
originally manufactured in calendar
years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are subject
to the Tier 1 emission standards for
their entire service lives.
(d) The following provisions apply
when there are multiple persons
meeting the definition of manufacturer
or remanufacturer:
(1) Each person meeting the definition
of manufacturer must comply with the
requirements of this part that apply to
manufacturers; and each person meeting
the definition of remanufacturer must
comply with the requirements of this
part that apply to remanufacturers.
However, if one person complies with a
specific requirement for a given
locomotive, then all manufacturers/
remanufacturers are be deemed to have
complied with that specific
requirement.
(2) We will apply the requirements of
subparts C, D, and E of this part to the
manufacturer/remanufacturer that
obtains the certificate of conformity.
Other manufacturers and
remanufacturers are required to comply
with the requirements of subparts C, D,
and E of this part only when notified by
us. In our notification, we will specify
a reasonable time period in which you
need to comply with the requirements
identified in the notice. See § 1033.601
for the applicability of 40 CFR part 1068
to these other manufacturers and
remanufacturers.
(3) For example, we may require a
railroad that installs certified kits but
does not hold the certificate to perform
production line testing or auditing of
the locomotives that it remanufactures.
However, if we did, we would allow the
railroad a reasonable amount of time to
develop the ability to perform such
testing or auditing.
(e) The provisions of this part apply
as specified for locomotives
manufactured or remanufactured on or
after January 1, 2008. See § 1033.102 to
determine the whether the standards of
this part or the standards of 40 CFR part
92 apply for model years 2008 through
2012. For example, for a locomotive that
was originally manufactured in 2007
and remanufactured on April 10, 2014,
the provisions of this part begin to apply
on April 10, 2014.
§ 1033.5
Exemptions and exclusions.
(a) Subpart G of this part exempts
certain locomotives from the standards
of this part.
(b) The definition of ‘‘locomotive’’ in
§ 1033.901 excludes certain vehicles. In
general, the engines used in such
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
excluded equipment are subject to
standards under other regulatory parts.
For example, see 40 CFR part 1039 for
requirements that apply to diesel
engines used in equipment excluded
from the definition of ‘‘locomotive’’ in
§ 1033.901. The following locomotives
are also excluded from the provisions of
this part 1033:
(1) Historic locomotives powered by
steam engines. To be excluded under
this paragraph (b)(1), a locomotive may
not use any internal combustion engines
and must be used only for historical
purposes such as at a museum or similar
public attraction.
(2) Locomotives powered only by an
external source of electricity.
(c) The provisions of this part do not
apply for any locomotive that has not
become a ‘‘new locomotive’’ (as defined
in § 1033.901) after December 31, 2007.
§ 1033.10
Organization of this part.
The regulations in this part 1033
contain provisions that affect
locomotive manufacturers,
remanufacturers, and others. However,
the requirements of this part are
generally addressed to the locomotive
manufacturer/remanufacturer. The term
‘‘you’’ generally means the
manufacturer/remanufacturer, as
defined in § 1033.901. This part 1033 is
divided into the following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the
applicability of part 1033 and gives an
overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the
emission standards and other
requirements that must be met to certify
locomotives under this part. Note that
§ 1033.150 discusses certain interim
requirements and compliance
provisions that apply only for a limited
time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes
how to apply for a certificate of
conformity.
(d) Subpart D of this part describes
general provisions for testing and
auditing production locomotives.
(e) Subpart E of this part describes
general provisions for testing in-use
locomotives.
(f) Subpart F of this part 40 CFR part
1065 describe how to test your
locomotives.
(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR
part 1068 describe requirements,
prohibitions, exemptions, and other
provisions that apply to locomotive
manufacturer/remanufacturers, owners,
operators, and all others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes
how you may generate and use emission
credits to certify your locomotives.
(i) Subpart I of this part describes
provisions for locomotive owners and
operators.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16043
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(j) Subpart J of this part contains
definitions and other reference
information.
§ 1033.15 Do any other regulation parts
apply to me?
(a) Part 1065 of this chapter describes
procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines.
Subpart F of this part 1033 describes
how to apply the provisions of part 1065
of this chapter to test locomotives to
determine whether they meet the
emission standards in this part.
(b) The requirements and prohibitions
of part 1068 of this chapter apply to
everyone, including anyone who
manufactures, remanufactures, imports,
maintains, owns, or operates any of the
locomotives subject to this part 1033.
See § 1033.601 to determine how to
apply the part 1068 regulations for
locomotives. Part 1068 of this chapter
describes general provisions, including
these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for
locomotive manufacturer/
remanufacturers and others.
(2) Exclusions and exemptions for
certain locomotives.
(3) Importing locomotives.
(4) Selective enforcement audits of
your production.
(5) Defect reporting and recall.
(6) Procedures for hearings.
(c) Other parts of this chapter apply
if referenced in this part.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
§ 1033.101
Exhaust emission standards.
See §§ 1033.102 and 1033.150 to
determine the model years for which
emission standards of this section apply
before 2015.
(a) Emission standards for line-haul
locomotives. Exhaust emissions from
your new locomotives may not exceed
the applicable emission standards in
Table 1 of this section during the useful
life of the locomotive. (Note: § 1033.901
defines locomotives to be ‘‘new’’ when
originally manufactured and when
remanufactured.) Measure emissions
using the applicable test procedures
described in subpart F of this part.
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.101.—LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS
Standards (g/bhp-hr)
Year of original manufacture
Tier of standards
NOX
1973–1992 f ..............................................................
1993 f–2004 ..............................................................
2005–2011 ................................................................
2012–2014 ................................................................
2015 or later .............................................................
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
0 a ......................................................................
1 a ......................................................................
2 a ......................................................................
3 b ......................................................................
4 ........................................................................
8.0
7.4
5.5
5.5
1.3 c
PM
HC
0.22
0.22
0.10 d
0.10
0.03
1.00
0.55
0.30
0.30
0.14 e
CO
5.0
2.2
1.5
1.5
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.
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 NO standard at the time of initial manufacture (instead of
X
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 NO +HC standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr instead of the otherwise applicable Tier 4 NO
X
X 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 Tier
(b) Emission standards for switch
locomotives. Exhaust emissions from
your new locomotives may not exceed
the applicable emission standards in
Table 2 of this section during the useful
life of the locomotive.
(Note: § 1033.901 defines locomotives to be
‘‘new’’ when originally manufactured and
when remanufactured.) Measure emissions
using the applicable test procedures
described in subpart F of this part.
TABLE 2 OF § 1033.101.—SWITCH LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION STANDARDS
Standards (g/bhp-hr)
Year of original manufacture
Tier of standards
NOX
1973–2001 ................................................................
2002–2004 ................................................................
2005–2010 ................................................................
2011–2014 ................................................................
2015 or later .............................................................
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
0 ........................................................................
1 a ......................................................................
2 a ......................................................................
3 ........................................................................
4 ........................................................................
11.8
11.0
8.1
5.0
1.3 c
PM
HC
0.26
0.26
0.13 d
0.10
0.03
2.10
1.20
0.60
0.60
0.14 c
CO
8.0
2.5
2.4
2.4
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.
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 NO +HC standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr instead of the otherwise applicable Tier 4 NO
X
X and HC
standards, as described in paragraph (j) of this section.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
b The
(c) Smoke standards. The smoke
opacity standards specified in Table 3 of
this section apply only for locomotives
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
certified to one or more PM standards or
FELs greater than 0.05 g/bhp-hr. Smoke
emissions, when measured in
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accordance with the provisions of
Subpart F of this part, shall not exceed
these standards.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16044
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3 OF § 1033.101.—SMOKE STANDARDS FOR LOCOMOTIVES (PERCENT OPACITY)
Steady-state
Tier 0 ............................................................................................................................................
Tier 1 ............................................................................................................................................
Tier 2 and later ............................................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(d) Averaging, banking, and trading.
You may generate or use emission
credits under the averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) program as described
in subpart H of this part to comply with
the NOX and/or PM standards of this
part. You may also use ABT to comply
with the Tier 4 HC standards of this part
as described in paragraph (j) of this
section. Generating or using emission
credits requires that you specify a
family emission limit (FEL) for each
pollutant you include in the ABT
program for each engine family. These
FELs serve as the emission standards for
the engine family with respect to all
required testing instead of the standards
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section. No FEL may be higher than
the previously applicable Tier of
standards. For example, no FEL for a
Tier 1 locomotive may be higher than
the Tier 0 standard.
(e) Notch standards. (1) Exhaust
emissions from locomotives may not
exceed the notch standards specified in
paragraph (e)(2) of this section, except
as allowed in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section, when measured using any test
procedures under any test conditions.
(2) Except as specified in paragraph
(e)(5) of this section, calculate the
applicable notch standards for each
pollutant for each notch from the
certified notch emission rate as follows:
Notch standard = (Ei) × (1.1 + (1¥ELHi/
std))
Where:
Ei = The deteriorated brake-specific emission
rate (for pollutant I) for the notch (i.e.,
the brake-specific emission rate
calculated under subpart F of this part,
adjusted by the deterioration factor in
the application for certification); where x
is NOX, HC (or NMHC or THCE, as
applicable), CO or PM.
ELHi = The deteriorated line-haul duty-cycle
weighted brake-specific emission rate for
pollutant I, as reported in the application
for certification, except for Tier 3 or later
switch locomotives, where ELHi equals
the deteriorated switch duty-cycle
weighted brake-specific emission rate for
pollutant I.
std = The applicable line-haul duty-cycle
standard or FEL, except for Tier 3 or later
switch locomotives, where std equals the
switch duty-cycle standard for pollutant
I.
(3) Exhaust emissions that exceed the
notch standards specified in paragraph
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(e)(2) of this section are allowed only if
one of the following is true:
(i) The same emission controls are
applied during the test conditions
causing the noncompliance as were
applied during certification test
conditions (and to the same degree).
(ii) The exceedance result from a
design feature that was described
(including its effect on emissions) in the
approved application for certification,
and is:
(A) Necessary for safety;
(B) Addresses infrequent regeneration
of an aftertreatment device; or
(C) Otherwise allowed by this part.
(4) Since you are only required to test
your locomotive at the highest emitting
dynamic brake point, the notch caps
that you calculate for the dynamic brake
point that you test also applies for other
dynamic brake points.
(5) No PM notch caps apply for
locomotives certified to a PM standard
or FEL of 0.05 g/bhp-hr or lower.
(f) Fuels. The exhaust emission
standards in this section apply for
locomotives using the fuel type on
which the locomotives in the engine
family are designed to operate.
(1) You must meet the numerical
emission standards for HC in this
section based on the following types of
hydrocarbon emissions for locomotives
powered by the following fuels:
(i) Alcohol-fueled locomotives: THCE
emissions for Tier 3 and earlier
locomotives and NMHCE for Tier 4.
(ii) Gaseous-fueled locomotives:
NMHC emissions.
(iii) Diesel-fueled and other
locomotives: THC emissions for Tier 3
and earlier locomotives and NMHC for
Tier 4.
(2) You must certify your dieselfueled locomotives to use the applicable
grades of diesel fuel as follows:
(i) Certify your Tier 4 and later dieselfueled locomotives for operation with
only Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD)
fuel. Use ULSD as the test fuel for these
locomotives.
(ii) Certify your Tier 3 and earlier
diesel-fueled locomotives for operation
with only ULSD fuel if they include
sulfur-sensitive technology and you
demonstrate compliance using a ULSD
test fuel.
(iii) Certify your Tier 3 and earlier
diesel-fueled locomotives for operation
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
30
25
20
30-sec peak
40
40
40
3-sec peak
50
50
50
with either ULSD fuel or Low Sulfur
Diesel (LSD) fuel if they do not include
sulfur-sensitive technology or if you
demonstrate compliance using an LSD
test fuel.
(iv) For Tier 2 and earlier dieselfueled locomotives, if you demonstrate
compliance using a ULSD test fuel, you
must adjust the measured PM emissions
upward by 0.01 g/bhp-hr to make them
equivalent to tests with LSD.
(g) Useful life. The emission standards
and requirements in this subpart apply
to the emissions from new locomotives
for their useful life. The useful life is
generally specified as MW-hrs and
years, and ends when either of the
values (MW-hrs or years) is exceeded or
the locomotive is remanufactured.
(1) The minimum useful life in terms
of MW-hrs is equal to the product of the
rated horsepower multiplied by 7.50.
The minimum useful life in terms of
years is ten years. For locomotives
originally manufactured before January
1, 2000 and not equipped with MW-hr
meters, the minimum useful life is equal
to 750,000 miles or ten years, whichever
is reached first.
(2) You must specify a longer useful
life if the locomotive or locomotive
engine is designed to last longer than
the applicable minimum useful life.
Recommending a time to remanufacture
that is longer than the minimum useful
life is one indicator of a longer design
life.
(3) Manufacturers/remanufacturers of
locomotive with non-locomotivespecific engines (as defined in
§ 1033.901) may ask us (before
certification) to allow a shorter useful
life for an engine family containing only
non-locomotive-specific engines. This
petition must include the full rationale
behind the request together with any
other supporting evidence. Based on
this or other information, we may allow
a shorter useful life.
(4) Remanufacturers of locomotive or
locomotive engine configurations that
have been previously certified under
paragraph (g)(3) of this section to a
useful life that is shorter than the value
specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section may certify to that same shorter
useful life value without request.
(h) Applicability for testing. The
emission standards in this subpart apply
to all testing, including certification
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
testing, production-line testing,
selective enforcement audits, and in-use
testing.
(i) Alternate CO standards.
Manufacturers/remanufacturers may
certify Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2
locomotives to an alternate CO emission
standard of 10.0 g/bhp-hr instead of the
otherwise applicable CO standard if
they also certify those locomotives to
alternate PM standards less than or
equal to one-half of the otherwise
applicable PM standard. For example, a
manufacturer certifying Tier 1
locomotives to a 0.11 g/bhp-hr PM
standard may certify those locomotives
to the alternate CO standard of 10.0 g/
bhp-hr.
(j) Alternate NOX+NMHC standards
for Tier 4. Manufacturers/
remanufacturers may certify Tier 4
locomotives to an alternate NOX+NMHC
emission standard of 1.3 g/bhp-hr
(instead of the otherwise applicable
NOX and NMHC standards). You may
use NOX credits to show compliance
with this standard by certifying your
family to a NOX+NMHC FEL. Calculate
the NOX credits needed as specified in
subpart H of this part using the
NOX+NMHC emission standard and FEL
in the calculation instead of the
otherwise applicable NOX standard and
FEL.
§ 1033.102 Transition to the standards of
this part for model years before 2015.
(a) Except as specified in
§ 1033.150(a), the Tier 0 and Tier 1
standards of § 1033.101 apply for new
locomotives beginning January 1, 2010,
except as specified in § 1033.150(a). The
Tier 0 and Tier 1 standards of 40 CFR
part 92 apply for earlier model years.
(b) Except as specified in
§ 1033.150(a), the Tier 2 standards of
§ 1033.101 apply for new locomotives
beginning January 1, 2013. The Tier 2
standards of 40 CFR part 92 apply for
earlier model years.
(c) The Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards of
§ 1033.101 apply for the model years
specified in that section.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.110 Emission diagnostics—general
requirements.
The provisions of this section apply if
you equip your locomotives with a
diagnostic system that will detect
significant malfunctions in its emissioncontrol system. See § 1033.420 for
information about how to select and
maintain diagnostic-equipped
locomotives for in-use testing. Notify
the owner/operator that the presence of
this diagnostic system affects their
maintenance obligations under
§ 1033.815.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(a) Use a malfunction-indicator light
(MIL). The MIL must be readily visible
to the operator. When the MIL goes on,
it must display ‘‘Check Emission
Controls’’ or a similar message that we
approve. You may use sound in
addition to the light signal.
(b) You may only illuminate the MIL
for malfunctions that require
maintenance action by the owner/
operator. To ensure that owner/
operators consider MIL illumination
seriously, you may not illuminate it for
malfunctions that would not otherwise
require maintenance. This section does
not limit your ability to display other
indicator lights or messages, as long as
they are clearly distinguishable from
MILs affecting the owner/operator’s
maintenance obligations under
§ 1033.815.
(c) Control when the MIL can go out.
If the MIL goes on to show a
malfunction, it must remain on during
all later engine operation until servicing
corrects the malfunction. If the engine is
not serviced, but the malfunction does
not recur during the next 24 hours, the
MIL may stay off during later engine
operation.
(d) Record and store in computer
memory any diagnostic trouble codes
showing a malfunction that should
illuminate the MIL. The stored codes
must identify the malfunctioning system
or component as uniquely as possible.
Make these codes available through the
data link connector as described in
paragraph (e) of this section. You may
store codes for conditions that do not
turn on the MIL. The system must store
a separate code to show when the
diagnostic system is disabled (from
malfunction or tampering). Provide
instructions to the owner/operator
regarding how to interpret malfunction
codes.
(e) Make data, access codes, and
devices accessible. Make all required
data accessible to us without any access
codes or devices that only you can
supply. Ensure that anyone servicing
your locomotive can read and
understand the diagnostic trouble codes
stored in the onboard computer with
generic tools and information.
(f) Follow standard references for
formats, codes, and connections.
§ 1033.112
systems.
Emission diagnostics for SCR
Engines equipped with SCR systems
must meet the requirements of this
section in addition to the requirements
of § 1033.110.
(a) The diagnostic system must
monitor urea quality and tank levels and
alert operators to the need to refill the
urea tank before it is empty using a
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16045
malfunction-indicator light (MIL) as
specified in § 1033.110 and an audible
alarm. You do not need to separately
monitor urea quality if you include an
exhaust NOX sensor (or other sensor)
that allows you to determine inadequate
urea quality.
(b) Your onboard computer must
record in nonvolatile computer memory
all incidents of engine operation with
inadequate urea injection or urea
quality.
§ 1033.115
Other requirements.
Locomotives that are required to meet
the emission standards of this part must
meet the requirements of this section.
These requirements apply when the
locomotive is new (for freshly
manufactured or remanufactured
locomotives) and continue to apply
throughout the useful life.
(a) Crankcase emissions. Crankcase
emissions may not be discharged
directly into the ambient atmosphere
from any locomotive, except as follows:
(1) Locomotives may discharge
crankcase emissions to the ambient
atmosphere if the emissions are added
to the exhaust emissions (either
physically or mathematically) during all
emission testing. If you take advantage
of this exception, you must do the
following things:
(i) Manufacture the locomotives so
that all crankcase emissions can be
routed into the applicable sampling
systems specified in 40 CFR part 1065,
consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(ii) Account for deterioration in
crankcase emissions when determining
exhaust deterioration factors.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph (a),
crankcase emissions that are routed to
the exhaust upstream of exhaust
aftertreatment during all operations are
not considered to be discharged directly
into the ambient atmosphere.
(b) Adjustable parameters.
Locomotives that have adjustable
parameters must meet all the
requirements of this part for any
adjustment in the approved adjustable
range. You must specify in your
application for certification the
adjustable range of each adjustable
parameter on a new locomotive or new
locomotive engine to:
(1) Ensure that safe locomotive
operating characteristics are available
within that range, as required by section
202(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521(a)(4)), taking into consideration
the production tolerances.
(2) Limit the physical range of
adjustability to the maximum extent
practicable to the range that is necessary
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16046
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
for proper operation of the locomotive
or locomotive engine.
(c) Prohibited controls. You may not
design or produce your locomotives
with emission control devices, systems,
or elements of design that cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to
public health, welfare, or safety while
operating. For example, this would
apply if the locomotive emits a noxious
or toxic substance it would otherwise
not emit that contributes to such an
unreasonable risk.
(d) Evaporative and refueling controls.
For locomotives fueled with a volatile
fuel you must design and produce them
to minimize evaporative emissions
during normal operation, including
periods when the engine is shut down.
You must also design and produce them
to minimize the escape of fuel vapors
during refueling. Hoses used to refuel
gaseous-fueled locomotives may not be
designed to be bled or vented to the
atmosphere under normal operating
conditions. No valves or pressure relief
vents may be used on gaseous-fueled
locomotives except as emergency safety
devices that do not operate at normal
system operating flows and pressures.
(e) Altitude requirements. All
locomotives prior to sale, introduction
into service, or return to service, must
be designed to include features that
compensate for changes in altitude to
ensure that the locomotives will comply
with the applicable emission standards
when operated at any altitude less than
7000 feet above sea level.
(f) Defeat devices. You may not equip
your locomotives with a defeat device.
A defeat device is an auxiliary emission
control device (AECD) that reduces the
effectiveness of emission controls under
conditions that the locomotive may
reasonably be expected to encounter
during normal operation and use.
(1) This does not apply to AECDs you
identify in your certification application
if any of the following is true:
(i) The conditions of concern were
substantially included in the applicable
duty cycle test procedures described in
subpart F of this part.
(ii) You show your design is necessary
to prevent locomotive damage or
accidents.
(iii) The reduced effectiveness applies
only to starting the locomotive.
(iv) The locomotive emissions when
the AECD is functioning are at or below
the notch caps of § 1033.101.
(v) The AECD reduces urea flow for
an SCR aftertreatment system and meets
the requirements of this paragraph
(f)(1)(v). For operation outside the range
of ambient test conditions specified in
§ 1033.503 where emissions exceed one
or more notch caps, your SCR system
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
must function so that at least one of the
following conditions is met at all
applicable speeds and loads:
(A) You maintain the mass flow of
urea into the catalyst in the same
proportion as the same notch point
under test conditions.
(B) You maintain the mass flow of
urea into the catalyst at the highest level
possible without emitting ammonia at
excessive levels (excessive levels would
generally be levels higher than would
occur at other operations at the same
notch point under test conditions).
(C) The temperature of the exhaust is
too low to allow urea to be converted to
ammonia (consistent with good
engineering judgment).
(2) If your locomotive is designed to
allow operation at points other than
those included as test points, the
provisions of paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) and
(v) of this section apply as specified for
the most similar test point.
(g) Idle controls. All new locomotives
must be equipped with automatic
engine stop/start as described in this
paragraph (g). All new locomotives must
be designed to allow the engine(s) to be
restarted at least six times per day
without engine damage.
(1) Except as allowed by paragraph
(g)(2) of this section, the stop/start
systems must shut off the main
locomotive engine(s) after 30 minutes of
idling (or less) and must prevent the
engine(s) from being restarted to resume
extended idling.
(2) Stop/start systems may restart or
continue idling for the following
reasons:
(i) To prevent engine damage such as
to prevent the engine coolant from
freezing.
(ii) To maintain air brake pressure.
(iii) To perform necessary
maintenance.
(iv) To otherwise comply with federal
regulations.
(3) You may ask to use alternate stop/
start systems that will achieve
equivalent idle control.
§ 1033.120 Emission-related warranty
requirements.
(a) General requirements. You must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser and
each subsequent purchaser that the new
locomotive, including all parts of its
emission control system, meets two
conditions:
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped
so it conforms at the time of sale to the
ultimate purchaser with the
requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials
and workmanship that may keep it from
meeting these requirements.
(b) Warranty period. Except as
specified in this paragraph, the
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
minimum warranty period is one-third
of the useful life. Your emission-related
warranty must be valid for at least as
long as the minimum warranty periods
listed in this paragraph (b) in MW-hrs of
operation and years, whichever comes
first. You may offer an emission-related
warranty more generous than we
require. The emission-related warranty
for the locomotive may not be shorter
than any published warranty you offer
without charge for the locomotive.
Similarly, the emission-related warranty
for any component may not be shorter
than any published warranty you offer
without charge for that component. If
you provide an extended warranty to
individual owners for any components
covered in paragraph (c) of this section
for an additional charge, your emissionrelated warranty must cover those
components for those owners to the
same degree. If the locomotive does not
record MW-hrs, we base the warranty
periods in this paragraph (b) only on
years. The warranty period begins when
the locomotive is placed into service, or
back into service after remanufacture.
(c) Components covered. The
emission-related warranty covers all
components whose failure would
increase a locomotive’s emissions of any
pollutant. This includes components
listed in 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix I,
and components from any other system
you develop to control emissions. The
emission-related warranty covers these
components even if another company
produces the component. Your
emission-related warranty does not
cover components whose failure would
not increase a locomotive’s emissions of
any pollutant.
(d) Limited applicability. You may
deny warranty claims under this section
if the operator caused the problem
through improper maintenance or use,
as described in 40 CFR 1068.115.
(e) Owners manual. Describe in the
owners manual the emission-related
warranty provisions from this section
that apply to the locomotive.
§ 1033.125
Maintenance instructions.
Give the owner of each new
locomotive written instructions for
properly maintaining and using the
locomotive, including the emissioncontrol system. Include in the
instructions a notification that owners
and operators must comply with the
requirements of subpart I of this part
1033. The maintenance instructions also
apply to any service accumulation on
your emission-data locomotives, as
described in § 1033.245 and in 40 CFR
part 1065.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
§ 1033.130 Instructions for engine
remanufacturing or engine installation.
(a) If you do not complete assembly of
the new locomotive (such as selling a kit
that allows someone else to
remanufacture a locomotive under your
certificate), give the assembler
instructions for completing assembly
consistent with the requirements of this
part. Include all information necessary
to ensure that the locomotive will be
assembled in its certified configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have
the following information:
(1) Include the heading: ‘‘Emissionrelated assembly instructions’’.
(2) Describe any instructions
necessary to make sure the assembled
locomotive will operate according to
design specifications in your
application for certification.
(3) State one of the following as
applicable:
(i) ‘‘Failing to follow these
instructions when remanufacturing a
locomotive or locomotive engine
violates federal law (40 CFR
1068.105(b)), and may subject you to
fines or other penalties as described in
the Clean Air Act.’’.
(ii) ‘‘Failing to follow these
instructions when installing this
locomotive engine violates federal law
(40 CFR 1068.105(b)), and may subject
you to fines or other penalties as
described in the Clean Air Act.’’.
(c) You do not need installation
instructions for locomotives you
assemble.
(d) Provide instructions in writing or
in an equivalent format. For example,
you may post instructions on a publicly
available Web site for downloading or
printing. If you do not provide the
instructions in writing, explain in your
application for certification how you
will ensure that each assembler is
informed of the assembly requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16047
(D) Date of original manufacture of the
locomotive, as defined in § 1033.901.
(E) The standards/FELs to which the
locomotive was certified and the
following statement: ‘‘THIS
LOCOMOTIVE MUST COMPLY WITH
THESE EMISSION LEVELS EACH TIME
THAT IT IS REMANUFACTURED,
EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY 40 CFR
1033.750.’’.
(3) Label diesel-fueled locomotives
near the fuel inlet to identify the
allowable fuels, consistent with
§ 1033.101. For example, Tier 4
locomotives should be labeled ‘‘ULTRA
LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL ONLY’’.
You do not need to label Tier 3 and
earlier locomotives certified for use with
both LSD and ULSD.
(c) Engine labels. (1) Engine labels
meeting the specifications of paragraph
(c)(2) of this section shall be applied by:
(i) Every manufacturer at the point of
original manufacture; and
(ii) Every remanufacturer at the point
of remanufacture (including the original
remanufacture and subsequent
remanufactures).
(2) The engine label must meet all of
the following criteria:
(i) The label must be durable
throughout the useful life of the engine,
be legible and affixed to the engine in
a position in which it will be readily
visible after installation of the engine in
the locomotive. Attach it to an engine
part necessary for normal operation and
not normally requiring replacement
during the useful life of the locomotive.
You may not attach this label to any
equipment that is easily detached from
the engine. Attach the label so it cannot
be removed without destroying or
defacing the label. The label may be
made up of more than one piece, as long
as all pieces are permanently attached to
the same locomotive part.
(ii) The label must be lettered in the
English language using a color that
contrasts with the background of the
label.
(iii) The label must include all the
following information:
(A) The label heading: ‘‘ENGINE
EMISSION CONTROL
INFORMATION.’’. Manufacturers/
remanufacturers may add a subheading
to distinguish this label from the
locomotive label described in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(B) Full corporate name and
trademark of the manufacturer/
remanufacturer.
(C) Engine family and configuration
identification as specified in the
certificate under which the locomotive
is being manufactured or
remanufactured.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16048
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(D) A prominent unconditional
statement of compliance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
regulations which apply to locomotives,
as applicable:
(1) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 0
switch locomotives.’’.
(2) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 0
line-haul locomotives.’’.
(3) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 1
locomotives.’’.
(4) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 2
locomotives.’’.
(5) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 3
switch locomotives.’’.
(6) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 3
line-haul locomotives.’’.
(7) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 4
switch locomotives.’’.
(8) ‘‘This locomotive conforms to U.S.
EPA regulations applicable to Tier 4
line-haul locomotives.’’.
(E) The useful life of the locomotive.
(F) The standards/FELS to which the
locomotive was certified.
(G) Engine tune-up specifications and
adjustments, as recommended by the
manufacturer/remanufacturer, in
accordance with the applicable
emission standards. This includes but is
not limited to idle speed(s), injection
timing or ignition timing (as applicable),
and valve lash (as applicable).
(H) Other critical operating
instructions such as those related to
urea use for SCR systems.
(d) Manufacturers/remanufacturers
may also provide other information on
the labels that they deem necessary for
the proper operation and maintenance
of the locomotive. Manufacturers/
remanufacturers may also include other
features to prevent counterfeiting of
labels.
(e) You may ask us to approve
modified labeling requirements in this
part 1033 if you show that it is
necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate
label is consistent with the requirements
of this part.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
point on the nominal power curve for
the locomotive configuration, as defined
in this section. See § 1033.901 for the
definition of brake power. Round the
power value to the nearest whole
horsepower. Generally, this will be the
brake power of the engine in notch 8.
(b) The nominal power curve of a
locomotive configuration is its
maximum available brake power at each
possible operator demand setpoint or
‘‘notch’’. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for the
definition of operator demand. The
maximum available power at each
operator demand setpoint is based on
your design and production
specifications for that locomotive. The
nominal power curve does not include
any operator demand setpoints that are
not achievable during in-use operation.
For example, for a locomotive with only
eight discrete operator demand
setpoints, or notches, the nominal
power curve would be a series of eight
power points versus notch, rather than
a continuous curve.
(c) The nominal power curve must be
within the range of the actual power
curves of production locomotives
considering normal production
variability. If after production begins it
is determined that your nominal power
curve does not represent production
locomotives, we may require you to
amend your application for certification
under § 1033.225.
§ 1033.150
Interim provisions.
The provisions of this section apply
instead of other provisions of this part
for a limited time. This section
describes when these provisions apply.
(a) Early availability of Tier 0, Tier 1,
or Tier 2 systems. For model years 2008
and 2009, you may remanufacture
locomotives to meet the applicable
standards in 40 CFR part 92 only if no
remanufacture system has been certified
to meet the standards of this part and is
available at a reasonable cost at least
three months prior to the completion of
the remanufacture. For model years
2008 through 2012, you may
remanufacture Tier 2 locomotives to
meet the applicable standards in 40 CFR
part 92 only if no remanufacture system
has been certified to meet the standards
of this part and is available at a
reasonable cost at least three months
prior to the completion of the
remanufacture. For the purpose of this
paragraph (a), available at a reasonable
cost means available for use where all
of the following are true:
(1) The total incremental cost to the
owner and operators of the locomotive
due to meeting the new standards
(including initial hardware, increased
fuel consumption, and increased
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
maintenance costs) during the useful
life of the locomotive is less than
$220,000.
(2) The initial incremental hardware
costs are reasonably related to the
technology included in the
remanufacturing system and are less
than $125,000.
(3) The remanufactured locomotive
will have reliability throughout its
useful life that is similar to the
reliability the locomotive would have
had if it had been remanufactured
without the certified remanufacture
system.
(4) The remanufacturer must
demonstrate at the time of certification
that the system meets the requirements
of this paragraph (a).
(b) Delayed NOX standards for Tier 4.
For model years 2015 and 2016, freshly
manufactured locomotives are not
required to meet the Tier 4 NOX
standards, but must comply with all
other applicable standards and
requirements. Model year 2015 and
2016 locomotives must comply with all
Tier 4 requirements when
remanufactured on or after January 1,
2017.
(c) Locomotive labels for transition to
new standards. This paragraph (c)
applies when you remanufacture a
locomotive that was previously certified
under 40 CFR part 92. You must remove
the old locomotive label and replace it
with the locomotive label specified in
§ 1033.135.
(d) Small manufacturer/
remanufacturer provisions. The
production-line testing/auditing
requirements and in-use testing
requirements of this part do not apply
until January 1, 2013 for manufacturers/
remanufacturers that qualify as small
manufacturers under § 1033.901
(e) Producing switch locomotives
using certified nonroad engines. You
may use the provisions of this paragraph
(e) to produce new switch locomotives
in model years 2008 through 2017.
Locomotives produced under this
paragraph (e) are exempt from the
standards and requirements of this part
and 40 CFR part 92 subject to the
following provisions:
(1) All of the engines on the switch
locomotive must be covered by a
certificate of conformity issued under 40
CFR part 89 or 1039 for model year 2008
or later. Engines over 750 hp certified to
the Tier 4 standards for non-generator
set engines are not eligible for this
allowance after 2014.
(2) You must reasonably project that
more of the engines will be sold and
used for non-locomotive use than for
use in locomotives.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16049
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) You may not generate or use
locomotive credits under this part for
these locomotives.
(f) In-use compliance limits. For
purposes of determining compliance
after title or custody of a new Tier 4
locomotive has transferred to the
ultimate purchaser (or the locomotive
has been placed into service), calculate
the applicable in-use compliance limits
by adjusting the applicable standards/
FELs. (Note that this means that these
adjustments do not apply for
certification or production-line testing.)
The PM adjustment applies only for
model year 2015–2017 locomotives and
does not apply for locomotives with a
PM FEL higher than 0.03 g/bhp-hr. The
NOX adjustment applies only for model
year 2017–2019 line-haul locomotives
and 2015–2017 switch locomotives and
does not apply for locomotives with a
NOX FEL higher than 2.0 g/bhp-hr. Add
the applicable adjustments in Tables 1
or 2 of this section (which follow) to the
otherwise applicable standards (or
FELs) and notch caps.
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.150—IN-USE ADJUSTMENTS FOR TIER 4 LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVES
In-use adjustments (g/
bhp-hr)
For model
year 2017–
2019 Tier 4
NOX standards
Fraction of useful life already used
For model
year 2015–
2017 Tier 4
PM standards
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.01
0 < MW-hrs = 50% of UL ................................................................................................................................................
50 < MW-hrs = 75% of UL ..............................................................................................................................................
75 < MW-hrs = 100% of UL ............................................................................................................................................
TABLE 2 OF § 1033.150.—IN-USE ADJUSTMENTS FOR TIER 4 SWITCH LOCOMOTIVES
In-use adjustments (g/
bhp-hr)
For model
year 2015–
2017 Tier 4
NOX standards
Fraction of useful life already used
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
0 < useful life = 50% .......................................................................................................................................................
50 < useful life = 75% .....................................................................................................................................................
75 < useful life = 100% ...................................................................................................................................................
(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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
procedures is small relative to your
compliance margin (the degree to which
your locomotives are below the
applicable standards).
Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families
§ 1033.201 General requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity.
Certification is the process by which
you demonstrate to us that your freshly
manufactured or remanufactured
locomotives will meet the applicable
emission standards throughout their
useful lives (explaining to us how you
plan to manufacture or remanufacture
locomotives, and providing test data
showing that such locomotives will
comply with all applicable emission
standards.) Anyone meeting the
definition of manufacturer in § 1033.901
may apply for a certificate of conformity
for freshly manufactured locomotives.
Anyone meeting the definition of
remanufacturer in § 1033.901 may apply
for a certificate of conformity for
remanufactured locomotives.
(a) You must send us a separate
application for a certificate of
conformity for each engine family. A
certificate of conformity is valid starting
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For model
year 2015–
2017 Tier 4
PM standards
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.01
with the indicated effective date, but it
is not valid for any production after
December 31 of the model year for
which it is issued.
(b) The application must contain all
the information required by this part
and must not include false or
incomplete statements or information
(see § 1033.255).
(c) We may ask you to include less
information than we specify in this
subpart, as long as you maintain all the
information required by § 1033.250.
(d) You must use good engineering
judgment for all decisions related to
your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5).
(e) An authorized representative of
your company must approve and sign
the application.
(f) See § 1033.255 for provisions
describing how we will process your
application.
(g) We may require you to deliver
your test locomotives to a facility we
designate for our testing (see
§ 1033.235(c)).
(h) By applying for a certificate of
conformity, you are accepting
responsibility for the in-use emission
performance of all properly maintained
and used locomotives covered by your
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16050
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
certificate. This responsibility applies
without regard to whether you
physically manufacture or
remanufacture the entire locomotive. If
you do not physically manufacture or
remanufacture the entire locomotive,
you must take reasonable steps
(including those specified by this part)
to ensure that the locomotives produced
under your certificate conform to the
specifications of your application for
certification.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.205 Applying for a certificate of
conformity.
(a) Send the Designated Compliance
Officer a complete application for each
engine family for which you are
requesting a certificate of conformity.
(b) The application must be approved
and signed by the authorized
representative of your company.
(c) You must update and correct your
application to accurately reflect your
production, as described in § 1033.225.
(d) Include the following information
in your application:
(1) A description of the basic engine
design including, but not limited to, the
engine family specifications listed in
§ 1033.230. For freshly manufactured
locomotives, a description of the basic
locomotive design. For remanufactured
locomotives, a description of the basic
locomotive designs to which the
remanufacture system will be applied.
Include in your description, a list of
distinguishable configurations to be
included in the engine family.
(2) An explanation of how the
emission control system operates,
including detailed descriptions of:
(i) All emission control system
components.
(ii) Injection or ignition timing for
each notch (i.e., degrees before or after
top-dead-center), and any functional
dependence of such timing on other
operational parameters (e.g., engine
coolant temperature).
(iii) Each auxiliary emission control
device (AECD).
(iv) All fuel system components to be
installed on any production or test
locomotives.
(v) Diagnostics.
(3) A description of the test
locomotive.
(4) A description of the test
equipment and fuel used. Identify any
special or alternate test procedures you
used.
(5) A description of the operating
cycle and the period of operation
necessary to accumulate service hours
on the test locomotive and stabilize
emission levels. You may also include
a Green Engine Factor that would adjust
emissions from zero-hour engines to be
equivalent to stabilized engines.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(6) A description of all adjustable
operating parameters (including, but not
limited to, injection timing and fuel
rate), including the following:
(i) The nominal or recommended
setting and the associated production
tolerances.
(ii) The intended adjustable range,
and the physically adjustable range.
(iii) The limits or stops used to limit
adjustable ranges.
(iv) Production tolerances of the
limits or stops used to establish each
physically adjustable range.
(v) Information relating to why the
physical limits or stops used to establish
the physically adjustable range of each
parameter, or any other means used to
inhibit adjustment, are the most
effective means possible of preventing
adjustment of parameters to settings
outside your specified adjustable ranges
on in-use engines.
(7) Projected U.S. production
information for each configuration. If
you are projecting substantially different
sales of a configuration than you had
previously, we may require you to
explain why you are projecting the
change.
(8) All test data obtained by the
manufacturer/remanufacturer on each
test engine or locomotive. As described
in § 1033.235, we may allow you to
demonstrate compliance based on
results from previous emission tests,
development tests, or other testing
information.
(9) The intended deterioration factors
for the engine family, in accordance
with § 1033.245. If the deterioration
factors for the engine family were
developed using procedures that we
have not previously approved, you
should request preliminary approval
under § 1033.210.
(10) The intended useful life period
for the engine family, in accordance
with § 1033.101(g). If the useful life for
the engine family was determined using
procedures that we have not previously
approved, you should request
preliminary approval under § 1033.210.
(11) Copies of your proposed emission
control label(s), maintenance
instructions, and installation
instructions (where applicable).
(12) An unconditional statement
certifying that all locomotives included
the engine family comply with all
requirements of this part and the Clean
Air Act.
(e) If we request it, you must supply
such additional information as may be
required to evaluate the application.
(f) Provide the information to read,
record, and interpret all the information
broadcast by a locomotive’s onboard
computers and electronic control units.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
State that, upon request, you will give
us any hardware, software, or tools we
would need to do this. You may
reference any appropriate publicly
released standards that define
conventions for these messages and
parameters. Format your information
consistent with publicly released
standards.
(g) Include the information required
by other subparts of this part. For
example, include the information
required by § 1033.725 if you participate
in the ABT program.
(h) Include other applicable
information, such as information
specified in this part or part 1068 of this
chapter related to requests for
exemptions.
(i) Name an agent for service located
in the United States. Service on this
agent constitutes service on you or any
of your officers or employees for any
action by EPA or otherwise by the
United States related to the
requirements of this part.
(j) For imported locomotives, identify
the following:
(1) The port(s) at which you will
import your engines.
(2) The names and addresses of the
agents you have authorized to import
your engines.
(3) The location of test facilities in the
United States where you can test your
engines if we select them for testing
under a selective enforcement audit, as
specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
E.
§ 1033.210
Preliminary approval.
(a) If you send us information before
you finish the application, we will
review it and make any appropriate
determinations for questions related to
engine family definitions, auxiliary
emission-control devices, deterioration
factors, testing for service accumulation,
maintenance, and useful lives.
(b) Decisions made under this section
are considered to be preliminary
approval, subject to final review and
approval. We will generally not reverse
a decision where we have given you
preliminary approval, unless we find
new information supporting a different
decision.
(c) If you request preliminary
approval related to the upcoming model
year or the model year after that, we will
make best-efforts to make the
appropriate determinations as soon as
practicable. We will generally not
provide preliminary approval related to
a future model year more than three
years ahead of time.
(d) You must obtain preliminary
approval for your plan to develop
deterioration factors prior to the start of
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
any service accumulation to be used to
develop the factors.
§ 1033.220 Amending maintenance
instructions.
You may amend your emissionrelated maintenance instructions after
you submit your application for
certification, as long as the amended
instructions remain consistent with the
provisions of § 1033.125. You must send
the Designated Compliance Officer a
request to amend your application for
certification for an engine family if you
want to change the emission-related
maintenance instructions in a way that
could affect emissions. In your request,
describe the proposed changes to the
maintenance instructions. We will
disapprove your request if we determine
that the amended instructions are
inconsistent with maintenance you
performed on emission-data
locomotives. If owners/operators follow
the original maintenance instructions
rather than the newly specified
maintenance, this does not allow you to
disqualify those locomotives from inuse testing or deny a warranty claim.
(a) If you are decreasing the specified
maintenance, you may distribute the
new maintenance instructions to your
customers 30 days after we receive your
request, unless we disapprove your
request. This would generally include
replacing one maintenance step with
another. We may approve a shorter time
or waive this requirement.
(b) If your requested change would
not decrease the specified maintenance,
you may distribute the new
maintenance instructions anytime after
you send your request. For example,
this paragraph (b) would cover adding
instructions to increase the frequency of
filter changes for locomotives in severeduty applications.
(c) You do not need to request
approval if you are making only minor
corrections (such as correcting
typographical mistakes), clarifying your
maintenance instructions, or changing
instructions for maintenance unrelated
to emission control. We may ask you to
send us copies of maintenance
instructions revised under this
paragraph (c).
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
configurations within the scope of the
certificate, subject to the provisions of
this section.
You must also amend your
application if any changes occur with
respect to any information included in
your application. For example, you
must amend your application if you
determine that your actual production
variation for an adjustable parameter
exceeds the tolerances specified in your
application.
(a) You must amend your application
before you take either of the following
actions:
(1) Add a locomotive configuration to
an engine family. In this case, the
locomotive added must be consistent
with other locomotives in the engine
family with respect to the criteria listed
in § 1033.230. For example, you must
amend your application if you want to
produce 12-cylinder versions of the 16cylinder 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16051
(d) For engine families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
we will determine whether the existing
certificate of conformity covers your
new or modified locomotive. You may
ask for a hearing if we deny your request
(see § 1033.920).
(e) For engine families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
you may start producing the new or
modified locomotive anytime after you
send us your amended application,
before we make a decision under
paragraph (d) of this section. However,
if we determine that the affected
locomotives do not meet applicable
requirements, we will notify you to
cease production of the locomotives and
may require you to recall the
locomotives at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce locomotives under
this paragraph (e) is deemed to be
consent to recall all locomotives that we
determine do not meet applicable
emission standards or other
requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the
owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph
(c) of this section within 30 days, you
must stop producing the new or
modified locomotives.
(f) You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in certain cases after
the start of production. The changed
FEL may not apply to locomotives you
have already introduced into U.S.
commerce, except as described in this
paragraph (f). If we approve a changed
FEL after the start of production, you
must include the new FEL on the
emission control information label for
all locomotives produced after the
change. You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in the following
cases:
(1) You may ask to raise your FEL for
your engine family at any time. In your
request, you must show that you will
still be able to meet the emission
standards as specified in subparts B and
H of this part. If you amend your
application by submitting new test data
to include a newly added or modified
locomotive, as described in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section, use the appropriate
FELs with corresponding production
volumes to calculate your productionweighted average FEL for the model
year, as described in subpart H of this
part. If you amend your application
without submitting new test data, you
must use the higher FEL for the entire
family to calculate your productionweighted average FEL under subpart H
of this part.
(2) You may ask to lower the FEL for
your emission family only if you have
test data from production locomotives
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16052
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
showing that emissions are below the
proposed lower FEL. The lower FEL
applies only to engines or fuel-system
components you produce after we
approve the new FEL. Use the
appropriate FELs with corresponding
production volumes to calculate your
production-weighted average FEL for
the model year, as described in subpart
H of this part.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.230 Grouping locomotives into
engine families.
(a) Divide your product line into
engine families of locomotives that are
expected to have similar emission
characteristics throughout the useful
life. Your engine family is limited to a
single model year. Freshly
manufactured locomotives may not be
included in the same engine family as
remanufactured locomotives, except as
allowed by paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) This paragraph (b) applies for all
locomotives other than Tier 0
locomotives. Group locomotives in the
same engine family if they are the same
in all the following aspects:
(1) The combustion cycle (e.g., diesel
cycle).
(2) The type of engine cooling
employed and procedure(s) employed to
maintain engine temperature within
desired limits (thermostat, on-off
radiator fan(s), radiator shutters, etc.).
(3) The bore and stroke dimensions.
(4) The approximate intake and
exhaust event timing and duration
(valve or port).
(5) The location of the intake and
exhaust valves (or ports).
(6) The size of the intake and exhaust
valves (or ports).
(7) The overall injection or ignition
timing characteristics (i.e., the deviation
of the timing curves from the optimal
fuel economy timing curve must be
similar in degree).
(8) The combustion chamber
configuration and the surface-to-volume
ratio of the combustion chamber when
the piston is at top dead center position,
using nominal combustion chamber
dimensions.
(9) The location of the piston rings on
the piston.
(10) The method of air aspiration
(turbocharged, supercharged, naturally
aspirated, Roots blown).
(11) The general performance
characteristics of the turbocharger or
supercharger (e.g., approximate boost
pressure, approximate response time,
approximate size relative to engine
displacement).
(12) The type of air inlet cooler (airto-air, air-to-liquid, approximate degree
to which inlet air is cooled).
(13) The intake manifold induction
port size and configuration.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(14) The type of fuel and fuel system
configuration.
(15) The configuration of the fuel
injectors and approximate injection
pressure.
(16) The type of fuel injection system
controls (i.e., mechanical or electronic).
(17) The type of smoke control
system.
(18) The exhaust manifold port size
and configuration.
(19) The type of exhaust
aftertreatment system (oxidation
catalyst, particulate trap), and
characteristics of the aftertreatment
system (catalyst loading, converter size
vs. engine size).
(c) Group Tier 0 locomotives in the
same engine family if they are the same
in all the following aspects:
(1) The combustion cycle (e.g., diesel
cycle).
(2) The type of engine cooling
employed and procedure(s) employed to
maintain engine temperature within
desired limits (thermostat, on-off
radiator fan(s), radiator shutters, etc.).
(3) The approximate bore and stroke
dimensions.
(4) The approximate location of the
intake and exhaust valves (or ports).
(5) The combustion chamber general
configuration and the approximate
surface-to-volume ratio of the
combustion chamber when the piston is
at top dead center position, using
nominal combustion chamber
dimensions.
(6) The method of air aspiration
(turbocharged, supercharged, naturally
aspirated, Roots blown).
(7) The type of air inlet cooler (air-toair, air-to-liquid, approximate degree to
which inlet air is cooled).
(8) The type of fuel and general fuel
system configuration.
(9) The general configuration of the
fuel injectors and approximate injection
pressure.
(10) The type of fuel injection system
control (electronic or mechanical).
(d) You may subdivide a group of
locomotives that is identical under
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section into
different engine families if you show the
expected emission characteristics are
different during the useful life. For the
purposes of determining whether an
engine family is a small engine family
in § 1033.405(a)(2), we will consider the
number of locomotives that could have
been classed together under paragraph
(b) or (c) of this section, instead of the
number of locomotives that are included
in a subdivision allowed by this
paragraph (d).
(e) In unusual circumstances, you
may group locomotives that are not
identical with respect to the things
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
listed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section in the same engine family if you
show that their emission characteristics
during the useful life will be similar.
(f) During the first five calendar years
after a new tier of standards become
applicable, remanufactured engines may
be included in the same engine family
as freshly manufactured locomotives,
provided such engines are used for
locomotive models included in the
engine family.
§ 1033.235 Emission testing required for
certification.
This section describes the emission
testing you must perform to show
compliance with the emission standards
in § 1033.101.
(a) Test your emission-data
locomotives using the procedures and
equipment specified in subpart F of this
part.
(b) Select an emission-data
locomotive (or engine) from each engine
family for testing. It may be a low
mileage locomotive, or a development
engine (that is equivalent in design to
the engines of the locomotives being
certified), or another low hour engine.
Use good engineering judgment to select
the locomotive configuration that is
most likely to exceed (or have emissions
nearest to) an applicable emission
standard or FEL. In making this
selection, consider all factors expected
to affect emission control performance
and compliance with the standards,
including emission levels of all exhaust
constituents, especially NOX and PM.
(c) We may measure emissions from
any of your test locomotives or other
locomotives from the engine family.
(1) We may decide to do the testing
at your plant or any other facility. If we
do this, you must deliver the test
locomotive to a test facility we
designate. If we do the testing at your
plant, you must schedule it as soon as
possible and make available the
instruments, personnel, and equipment
we need.
(2) If we measure emissions from one
of your test locomotives, the results of
that testing become the official emission
results for the locomotive. Unless we
later invalidate these data, we may
decide not to consider your data in
determining if your engine family meets
applicable requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your
locomotives, we may set its adjustable
parameters to any point within the
adjustable ranges (see § 1033.115(b)).
(4) Before we test one of your
locomotives, we may calibrate it within
normal production tolerances for
anything we do not consider an
adjustable parameter.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(d) You may ask to use emission data
from a previous model year instead of
doing new tests if all the following are
true:
(1) The engine family from the
previous model year differs from the
current engine family only with respect
to model year, or other factors not
related to emissions. You may include
additional configurations subject to the
provisions of § 1033.225.
(2) The emission-data locomotive
from the previous model year remains
the appropriate emission-data
locomotive under paragraph (b) of this
section.
(3) The data show that the emissiondata locomotive would meet all the
requirements that apply to the engine
family covered by the application for
certification.
(e) We may require you to test a
second locomotive of the same or
different configuration in addition to the
locomotive tested under paragraph (b) of
this section.
(f) If you use an alternate test
procedure under 40 CFR 1065.10 and
later testing shows that such testing
does not produce results that are
equivalent to the procedures specified
in subpart F of this part, we may reject
data you generated using the alternate
procedure.
(1) Collect emission data using
measurements with enough significant
figures to calculate the cycle-weighted
emission rate to at least one more
decimal place than the applicable
standard. Apply any applicable
humidity corrections before weighting
emissions.
(2) Apply the regeneration factors if
applicable. At this point the emission
rate is generally considered to be an
official emission result.
(3) Apply the deterioration factor to
the official emission result, as described
in § 1033.245, then round the adjusted
figure to the same number of decimal
places as the emission standard. This
adjusted value is the deteriorated
emission level. Compare these emission
levels from the emission-data
locomotive with the applicable emission
standards. In the case of NOX+NMHC
standards, apply the deterioration factor
to each pollutant and then add the
results before rounding.
(4) The highest deteriorated emission
levels for each pollutant are considered
to be the certified emission levels.
§ 1033.245
Deterioration factors.
Establish deterioration factors for each
pollutant to determine whether your
locomotives will meet emission
standards for each pollutant throughout
the useful life, as described in
§§ 1033.101 and 1033.240. Determine
§ 1033.240 Demonstrating compliance with
deterioration factors as described in this
exhaust emission standards.
section, either with an engineering
(a) For purposes of certification, your
analysis, with pre-existing test data, or
engine family is considered in
with new emission measurements. The
compliance with the applicable
deterioration factors are intended to
numerical emission standards in
reflect the deterioration expected to
§ 1033.101 if all emission-data
result during the useful life of a
locomotives representing that family
locomotive maintained as specified in
have test results showing deteriorated
§ 1033.125. If you perform durability
emission levels at or below these
testing, the maintenance that you may
standards.
perform on your emission-data
(1) If you include your locomotive in
locomotive is limited to the
the ABT program in subpart H of this
maintenance described in § 1033.125.
part, your FELs are considered to be the
(a) Your deterioration factors must
applicable emission standards with
take into account any available data
which you must comply.
from in-use testing with similar
(2) If you do not include your
locomotives, consistent with good
locomotive in the ABT program in
engineering judgment. For example, it
subpart H of this part, but it was
would not be consistent with good
previously included in the ABT
engineering judgment to use
program in subpart H of this part, the
deterioration factors that predict
previous FELs are considered to be the
emission increases over the useful life of
applicable emission standards with
a locomotive or locomotive engine that
which you must comply.
are significantly less than the emission
(b) Your engine family is deemed not
increases over the useful life observed
to comply if any emission-data
from in-use testing of similar
locomotive representing that family has locomotives.
test results showing a deteriorated
(b) Deterioration factors may be
emission level above an applicable FEL
additive or multiplicative.
(1) Additive deterioration factor for
or emission standard from § 1033.101
exhaust emissions. Except as specified
for any pollutant. Use the following
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, use
steps to determine the deteriorated
an additive deterioration factor for
emission level for the test locomotive:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16053
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16054
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
onengineering analysis, explain why
this is appropriate and include a
statement that all data, analyses,
evaluations, and other information you
used are available for our review upon
request.
(3) If you do testing to determine
deterioration factors, describe the form
and extent of service accumulation,
including a rationale for selecting the
service-accumulation period and the
method you use to accumulate hours.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.250
Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Within 45 days after the end of the
model year, send the Designated
Compliance Officer a report describing
the following information about
locomotives you produced during the
model year:
(1) Report the total number of
locomotives you produced in each
engine family by locomotive model and
engine model.
(2) If you produced exempted
locomotives, report the number of
exempted locomotives you produced for
each locomotive model and identify the
buyer or shipping destination for each
exempted locomotive.
(b) Organize and maintain the
following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any
summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify
in § 1033.205 that you were not required
to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each
emission-data locomotive. For each
locomotive, describe all of the
following:
(i) The emission-data locomotive’s
construction, including its origin and
buildup, steps you took to ensure that
it represents production locomotives,
any components you built specially for
it, and all the components you include
in your application for certification.
(ii) How you accumulated locomotive
operating hours (service accumulation),
including the dates and the number of
hours accumulated.
(iii) All maintenance, including
modifications, parts changes, and other
service, and the dates and reasons for
the maintenance.
(iv) All your emission tests, including
documentation on routine and standard
tests, as specified in part 40 CFR part
1065, and the date and purpose of each
test.
(v) All tests to diagnose locomotive or
emission control performance, giving
the date and time of each and the
reasons for the test.
(vi) Any other significant events.
(4) If you test a development engine
for certification, you may omit
information otherwise required by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
paragraph (b)(3) of this section that is
unrelated to emissions and emissionrelated components.
(5) Production figures for each engine
family divided by assembly plant.
(6) Keep a list of locomotive
identification numbers for all the
locomotives you produce under each
certificate of conformity.
(c) Keep data from routine emission
tests (such as test cell temperatures and
relative humidity readings) for one year
after we issue the associated certificate
of conformity. Keep all other
information specified in paragraph (a) of
this section for eight years after we issue
your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format
and on any media, as long as you can
promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.
(e) Send us copies of any locomotive
maintenance instructions or
explanations if we ask for them.
§ 1033.255
EPA decisions.
(a) If we determine your application is
complete and shows that the engine
family meets all the requirements of this
part and the Clean Air Act, we will
issue a certificate of conformity for your
engine family for that model year. We
may make the approval subject to
additional conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for
certification if we determine that your
engine family fails to comply with
emission standards or other
requirements of this part or the Clean
Air Act. Our decision may be based on
a review of all information available to
us. If we deny your application, we will
explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your
application or suspend or revoke your
certificate if you do any of the
following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing
or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete
information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent).
(3) Render inaccurate any test data.
(4) Deny us from completing
authorized activities. This includes a
failure to provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce locomotives for
importation into the United States at a
location where local law prohibits us
from carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested
information or amend your application
to include all locomotives being
produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise
circumvents the intent of the Clean Air
Act or this part.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(d) We may void your certificate if
you do not keep the records we require
or do not give us information when we
ask for it.
(e) We may void your certificate if we
find that you intentionally submitted
false or incomplete information.
(f) If we deny your application or
suspend, revoke, or void your
certificate, you may ask for a hearing
(see § 1033.920).
Subpart D—Manufacturer and
Remanufacturer Production Line
Testing and Audit Programs
§ 1033.301
Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart of
this part apply to manufacturers/
remanufacturers of locomotives certified
under this part, with the following
exceptions:
(a) The requirements of §§ 1033.310
1033.315, 1033.320, 1033.325, and
1033.335 apply only to manufacturers of
freshly manufactured locomotives or
locomotive engines (including those
used for repowering). We may also
apply these requirements to
remanufacturers of any locomotives for
which there is reason to believe
production problems exist that could
affect emission performance. When we
make a determination that production
problems may exist that could affect
emission performance, we will notify
the remanufacturer(s). The requirements
of §§ 1033.305, 1033.310, 1033.315,
1033.320, 1033.325, and 1033.335 will
apply as specified in the notice.
(b) The requirements of § 1033.340
apply only to remanufacturers.
(c) As specified in § 1033.1(d), we
may apply the requirements of this
subpart to manufacturers/
remanufacturers that do not certify the
locomotives. However, unless we
specify otherwise, the requirements of
this subpart apply to manufacturers/
remanufacturers that hold the
certificates for the locomotives.
§ 1033.305
General requirements.
(a) Manufacturers (and
remanufacturers, where applicable) are
required to test production line
locomotives using the test procedures
specified in § 1033.315. While this
subpart refers to locomotive testing, you
may test locomotive engines instead of
testing locomotives, unless we
specifically require you to conduct
production line testing on locomotives.
If we determine that locomotive testing
is required, we will notify you and will
specify how to complete the testing
(including specifying the time period in
which you must complete the testing).
(b) Remanufacturers are required to
conduct audits according to the
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
requirements of § 1033.340 to ensure
that remanufactured locomotives
comply with the requirements of this
part.
(c) If you certify an engine family with
carryover emission data, as described in
§ 1033.235, and these equivalent engine
families consistently pass the
production-line testing requirements
over the preceding two-year period, you
may ask for a reduced testing rate for
further production-line testing for that
family. If we reduce your testing rate,
we may limit our approval to any
number of model years. In determining
whether to approve your request, we
may consider the number of
locomotives that have failed emission
tests.
(d) You may ask to use an alternate
program for testing production-line
locomotives. In your request, you must
show us that the alternate program gives
equal assurance that your locomotives
meet the requirements of this part. If we
approve your alternate program, we may
waive some or all of this subpart’s
requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(d) If one or more locomotives fail a
production line test, then you must test
two additional locomotives from the
next fifteen produced in that engine
family for each locomotive that fails. For
example, if you are required to test four
locomotives under paragraph (a) of this
section and the second locomotive fails
to comply with one or more standards,
then you must test two additional
locomotives from the next fifteen
produced in that engine family. If both
of those locomotive pass all standards,
you are required to test two additional
locomotive. If they both pass, you are
done with testing for that family for the
year since you tested six locomotives
(the four originally required plus the
two additional locomotives).
§ 1033.315
Test procedures.
(a) Test procedures. Use the test
procedures described in subpart F of
this part, except as specified in this
section.
(1) You may ask to use test other
procedures. We will approve your
request if we determine that it is not
possible to perform satisfactory testing
using the specified procedures. We may
also approve alternate test procedures
under § 1033.305(d).
(2) If you used test procedures other
than those in subpart F of this part
during certification for the engine
family (other than alternate test
procedures necessary for testing a
development engine or a low hour
engine instead of a low mileage
locomotive), use the same test
procedures for production line testing
that you used in certification.
(b) Modifying a test locomotive. Once
an engine is selected for testing, you
may adjust, repair, maintain, or modify
it or check its emissions only if one of
the following is true:
(1) You document the need for doing
so in your procedures for assembling
and inspecting all your production
engines and make the action routine for
all the engines in the engine family.
(2) This subpart otherwise specifically
allows your action.
(3) We approve your action in
advance.
(c) Adjustable parameters. (1) Confirm
that adjustable parameters are set to
values or positions that are within the
range recommended to the ultimate
purchaser.
(2) We may require to be adjusted any
adjustable parameter to any setting
within the specified adjustable range of
that parameter prior to the performance
of any test.
(d) Stabilizing emissions. You may
stabilize emissions from the locomotives
to be tested through service
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16055
accumulation by running the engine
through a typical duty cycle. Emissions
are considered stabilized after 300 hours
of operation. You may accumulate fewer
hours, consistent with good engineering
judgment. You may establish a green
engine factor for each regulated
pollutant for each engine family, instead
of (or in combination with)
accumulating actual operation, to be
used in calculating emissions test
results. You must obtain our approval
prior to using a green engine factor.
(e) Adjustment after shipment. If a
locomotive is shipped to a facility other
than the production facility for
production line testing, and an
adjustment or repair is necessary
because of such shipment, you may
perform the necessary adjustment or
repair only after the initial test of the
locomotive, unless we determine that
the test would be impossible to perform
or would permanently damage the
locomotive.
(f) Malfunctions. If a locomotive
cannot complete the service
accumulation or an emission test
because of a malfunction, you may
request that we authorize either the
repair of that locomotive or its deletion
from the test sequence.
(g) Retesting. If you determine that
any production line emission test of a
locomotive is invalid, you must retest it
in accordance with the requirements of
this subpart. Report emission results
from all tests to us, including test results
you determined are invalid. You must
also include a detailed explanation of
the reasons for invalidating any test in
the quarterly report required in
§ 1033.325(e). In the event a retest is
performed, you may ask us within ten
days of the end of the production
quarter for permission to substitute the
after-repair test results for the original
test results. We will respond to the
request within ten working days of our
receipt of the request.
§ 1033.325 Calculation and reporting of
test results.
(a) Calculate initial test results using
the applicable test procedure specified
in § 1033.315(a). Include applicable
non-deterioration adjustments such as a
green engine factor or regeneration
adjustment factor. Round the results to
the number of decimal places in the
applicable emission standard expressed
to one additional significant figure.
(b) If you conduct multiple tests on
any locomotives, calculate final test
results by summing the initial test
results derived in paragraph (a) of this
section for each test locomotive,
dividing by the number of tests
conducted on the locomotive, and
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16056
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rounding to the same number of decimal
places in the applicable standard
expressed to one additional significant
figure.
(c) Calculate the final test results for
each test locomotive by applying the
appropriate deterioration factors,
derived in the certification process for
the engine family, to the final test
results, and rounding to the same
number of decimal places in the
applicable standard expressed to one
additional significant figure.
(d) If, subsequent to an initial failure
of a production line test, the average of
the test results for the failed locomotive
and the two additional locomotives
tested, is greater than any applicable
emission standard or FEL, the engine
family is deemed to be in noncompliance with applicable emission
standards, and you must notify us
within ten working days of such
noncompliance.
(e) Within 45 calendar days of the end
of each quarter, you must send to the
Designated Compliance Officer a report
with the following information:
(1) The location and description of the
emission test facilities which you used
to conduct your testing.
(2) Total production and sample size
for each engine family tested.
(3) The applicable standards against
which each engine family was tested.
(4) For each test conducted, include
all of the following:
(i) A description of the test
locomotive, including:
(A) Configuration and engine family
identification.
(B) Year, make, and build date.
(C) Engine identification number.
(D) Number of megawatt-hours (or
miles if applicable) of service
accumulated on locomotive prior to
testing.
(E) Description of green engine factor;
how it is determined and how it is
applied.
(ii) Location(s) where service
accumulation was conducted and
description of accumulation procedure
and schedule, if applicable.
(iii) Test number, date, test procedure
used, initial test results before and after
rounding, and final test results for all
production line emission tests
conducted, whether valid or invalid,
and the reason for invalidation of any
test results, if applicable.
(iv) A complete description of any
adjustment, modification, repair,
preparation, maintenance, and testing
which was performed on the test
locomotive, has not been reported
pursuant to any other paragraph of this
subpart, and will not be performed on
other production locomotives.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(v) Any other information we may ask
you to add to your written report so we
can determine whether your new
engines conform with the requirements
of this subpart.
(5) For each failed locomotive as
defined in § 1033.335(a), a description
of the remedy and test results for all
retests as required by § 1033.345(g).
(6) The following signed statement
and endorsement by an authorized
representative of your company:
We submit this report under sections 208
and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our
production-line testing conformed
completely with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 1033. We have not changed production
processes or quality-control procedures for
the test locomotives in a way that might
affect emission controls. All the information
in this report is true and accurate to the best
of my knowledge. I know of the penalties for
violating the Clean Air Act and the
regulations. (Authorized Company
Representative)
§ 1033.330 Maintenance of records;
submittal of information.
(a) You must establish, maintain, and
retain the following adequately
organized and indexed test records:
(1) A description of all equipment
used to test locomotives. The equipment
requirements in subpart F of this part
apply to tests performed under this
subpart. Maintain these records for each
test cell that can be used to perform
emission testing under this subpart.
(2) Individual test records for each
production line test or audit including:
(i) The date, time, and location of
each test or audit.
(ii) The method by which the green
engine factor was calculated or the
number of hours of service accumulated
on the test locomotive when the test
began and ended.
(iii) The names of all supervisory
personnel involved in the conduct of
the production line test or audit;
(iv) A record and description of any
adjustment, repair, preparation or
modification performed on test
locomotives, giving the date, associated
time, justification, name(s) of the
authorizing personnel, and names of all
supervisory personnel responsible for
the conduct of the action.
(v) If applicable, the date the
locomotive was shipped from the
assembly plant, associated storage
facility or port facility, and the date the
locomotive was received at the testing
facility.
(vi) A complete record of all emission
tests or audits performed under to this
subpart (except tests performed directly
by us), including all individual
worksheets and/or other documentation
relating to each test, or exact copies
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
thereof, according to the record
requirements specified in subpart F of
this part and 40 CFR part 1065.
(vii) A brief description of any
significant events during testing not
otherwise described under this
paragraph (a)(2), commencing with the
test locomotive selection process and
including such extraordinary events as
engine damage during shipment.
(b) Keep all records required to be
maintained under this subpart for a
period of eight years after completion of
all testing. Store these records in any
format and on any media, as long as you
can promptly provide to us organized,
written records in English if we ask for
them and all the information is retained.
(c) Send us the following information
with regard to locomotive production if
we ask for it:
(1) Projected production for each
configuration within each engine family
for which certification has been
requested and/or approved.
(2) Number of locomotives, by
configuration and assembly plant,
scheduled for production.
(d) Nothing in this section limits our
authority to require you to establish,
maintain, keep or submit to us
information not specified by this
section.
(e) Send all reports, submissions,
notifications, and requests for approval
made under this subpart to the
Designated Compliance Officer using an
approved format.
(f) You must keep a copy of all reports
submitted under this subpart.
§ 1033.335 Compliance with criteria for
production line testing.
There are two types of potential
failures: failure of an individual
locomotive to comply with the
standards, and a failure of an engine
family to comply with the standards.
(a) A failed locomotive is one whose
final test results pursuant to
§ 1033.325(c), for one or more of the
applicable pollutants, exceed an
applicable emission standard or FEL.
(b) An engine family is deemed to be
in noncompliance, for purposes of this
subpart, if at any time throughout the
model year, the average of an initial
failed locomotive and the two
additional locomotives tested, is greater
than any applicable emission standard
or FEL.
§ 1033.340 Remanufactured locomotives:
installation audit requirements.
The section specifies the requirements
for certifying remanufacturers to audit
the remanufacture of locomotives
covered by their certificates of
conformity for proper components,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(B) Year, make, build date, and
remanufacture date; and
(C) Engine identification number;
(ii) Any other information we request
relevant to the determination whether
the new locomotives being
remanufactured do in fact conform with
the regulations with respect to which
the certificate of conformity was issued;
(5) For each failed locomotive as
defined in paragraph (d) of this section,
a description of the remedy as required
by § 1033.345(g);
(6) The following signed statement
and endorsement by your authorized
representative:
We submit this report under sections
208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our
production-line auditing conformed
completely with the requirements of 40
CFR part 1033. We have not changed
production processes or quality-control
procedures for the audited locomotives
in a way that might affect emission
controls. All the information in this
report is true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge. I know of the penalties
for violating the Clean Air Act and the
regulations. (Authorized Company
Representative)
§ 1033.345 Suspension and revocation of
certificates of conformity.
(a) A certificate can be suspended for
an individual locomotive as follows:
(1) The certificate of conformity is
automatically suspended for any
locomotive that fails a production line
test pursuant to § 1033.335(a), effective
from the time the testing of that
locomotive is completed.
(2) The certificate of conformity is
automatically suspended for any
locomotive that fails an audit pursuant
to § 1033.340(d), effective from the time
that auditing of that locomotive is
completed.
(b) A certificate can be suspended for
an engine family as follows:
(1) We may suspend the certificate of
conformity for an engine family that is
in noncompliance pursuant to
§ 1033.335(b), thirty days after the
engine family is deemed to be in
noncompliance.
(2) We may suspend the certificate of
conformity for an engine family that is
determined to have failed an audit
pursuant to § 1033.340(f). This
suspension will not occur before thirty
days after the engine family is deemed
to be in noncompliance.
(c) If we suspend your certificate of
conformity for an engine family, the
suspension may apply to all facilities
producing engines from an engine
family, even if you find noncompliant
engines only at one facility.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16057
(d) We may revoke a certificate of
conformity for any engine family in
whole or in part if:
(1) You fail to comply with any of the
requirements of this subpart.
(2) You submit false or incomplete
information in any report or information
provided to us under this subpart.
(3) You render inaccurate any test
data submitted under this subpart.
(4) An EPA enforcement officer is
denied the opportunity to conduct
activities authorized in this subpart.
(5) An EPA enforcement officer is
unable to conduct authorized activities
for any reason.
(e) We will notify you in writing of
any suspension or revocation of a
certificate of conformity in whole or in
part; a suspension or revocation is
effective upon receipt of such
notification or thirty days from the time
an engine family is deemed to be in
noncompliance under §§ 1033.325(d),
1033.335(a), 1033.335(b), or 1033.340(f)
is made, whichever is earlier, except
that the certificate is immediately
suspended with respect to any failed
locomotives as provided for in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) We may revoke a certificate of
conformity for an engine family when
the certificate has been suspended
under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section
if the remedy is one requiring a design
change or changes to the locomotive,
engine and/or emission control system
as described in the application for
certification of the affected engine
family.
(g) Once a certificate has been
suspended for a failed locomotive, as
provided for in paragraph (a) of this
section, you must take all the following
actions before the certificate is
reinstated for that failed locomotive:
(1) Remedy the nonconformity.
(2) Demonstrate that the locomotive
conforms to applicable standards or
family emission limits by retesting, or
reauditing if applicable, the locomotive
in accordance with this part.
(3) Submit a written report to us after
successful completion of testing (or
auditing, if applicable) on the failed
locomotive, which contains a
description of the remedy and testing
(or auditing) results for each locomotive
in addition to other information that
may be required by this part.
(h) Once a certificate for a failed
engine family has been suspended
pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section, you must take the following
actions before we will consider
reinstating the certificate:
(1) Submit a written report to us
identifying the reason for the
noncompliance of the locomotives,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16058
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
describing the remedy, including a
description of any quality control
measures you will use to prevent future
occurrences of the problem, and stating
the date on which the remedies will be
implemented.
(2) Demonstrate that the engine family
for which the certificate of conformity
has been suspended does in fact comply
with the regulations of this part by
testing (or auditing) locomotives
selected from normal production runs of
that engine family. Such testing (or
auditing) must comply with the
provisions of this subpart. If you elect
to continue testing (or auditing)
individual locomotives after suspension
of a certificate, the certificate is
reinstated for any locomotive actually
determined to be in conformance with
the applicable standards or family
emission limits through testing (or
auditing) in accordance with the
applicable test procedures, provided
that we have not revoked the certificate
under paragraph (f) of this section.
(i) If the certificate has been revoked
for an engine family, you must take the
following actions before we will issue a
certificate that would allow you to
continue introduction into commerce of
a modified version of that family:
(1) If we determine that the change(s)
in locomotive design may have an effect
on emission deterioration, we will
notify you within five working days
after receipt of the report in paragraph
(h) of this section, whether subsequent
testing/auditing under this subpart will
be sufficient to evaluate the change(s) or
whether additional testing (or auditing)
will be required.
(2) After implementing the change or
changes intended to remedy the
nonconformity, you must demonstrate
that the modified engine family does in
fact conform with the regulations of this
part by testing locomotives (or auditing
for remanufactured locomotives)
selected from normal production runs of
that engine family. When both of these
requirements are met, we will reissue
the certificate or issue a new certificate.
If this subsequent testing (or auditing)
reveals failing data the revocation
remains in effect.
(j) At any time subsequent to an initial
suspension of a certificate of conformity
for a test or audit locomotive pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section, but not
later than 30 days (or such other period
as we may allow) after the notification,
our decision to suspend or revoke a
certificate of conformity in whole or in
part pursuant to paragraphs (b), (c), or
(f) of this section, you may request a
hearing as to whether the tests or audits
have been properly conducted or any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
sampling methods have been properly
applied. (See § 1033.920.)
(k) Any suspension of a certificate of
conformity under paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section will be made
only after you have been offered an
opportunity for a hearing conducted in
accordance with § 1033.920. It will not
apply to locomotives no longer in your
possession.
(l) If we suspend, revoke, or void a
certificate of conformity, and you
believe that our decision was based on
erroneous information, you may ask us
to reconsider our decision before
requesting a hearing. If you demonstrate
to our satisfaction that our decision was
based on erroneous information, we will
reinstate the certificate.
(m) We may conditionally reinstate
the certificate for that family so that you
do not have to store non-test
locomotives while conducting
subsequent testing or auditing of the
noncomplying family subject to the
following condition: you must commit
to recall all locomotives of that family
produced from the time the certificate is
conditionally reinstated if the family
fails subsequent testing, or auditing if
applicable, and must commit to remedy
any nonconformity at no expense to the
owner.
Subpart E—In-use Testing
§ 1033.401
Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart are
applicable to certificate holders for
locomotives subject to the provisions of
this part. These requirements may also
be applied to other manufacturers/
remanufacturers as specified in
§ 1033.1(d).
§ 1033.405
General provisions.
(a) Each year, we will identify engine
families and configurations within
families that you must test according to
the requirements of this section.
(1) We may require you to test one
engine family each year for which you
have received a certificate of
conformity. If you are a manufacturer
that holds certificates of conformity for
both freshly manufactured and
remanufactured locomotive engine
families, we may require you to test one
freshly manufactured engine family and
one remanufactured engine family. We
may require you to test additional
engine families if we have reason to
believe that locomotives in such
families do not comply with emission
standards in use.
(2) For engine families of less than 10
locomotives per year, no in-use testing
will be required, unless we have reason
to believe that those engine families are
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not complying with the applicable
emission standards in use.
(b) Test a sample of in-use
locomotives from an engine family, as
specified in § 1033.415. We will use
these data, and any other data available
to us, to determine the compliance
status of classes of locomotives,
including for purposes of recall under
40 CFR part 1068, and whether remedial
action is appropriate.
§ 1033.410
In-use test procedure.
(a) You must test the complete
locomotives; you may not test engines
that are not installed in locomotives at
the time of testing.
(b) Test the locomotive according to
the test procedures outlined in subpart
F of this part, except as provided in this
section.
(c) Use the same test procedures for
in-use testing as were used for
certification, except for cases in which
certification testing was not conducted
with a locomotive, but with a
development engine or other engine. In
such cases, we will specify deviations
from the certification test procedures as
appropriate. We may allow or require
other alternate procedures, with
advance approval.
(d) Set all adjustable locomotive or
engine parameters to values or positions
that are within the range specified in the
certificate of conformity. We may
require you to set these parameters to
specific values.
(e) We may waive portions of the
applicable test procedure that are not
necessary to determine in-use
compliance.
§ 1033.415
General testing requirements.
(a) Number of locomotives to be
tested. Determine the number of
locomotives to be tested by the
following method:
(1) Test a minimum of 2 locomotives
per engine family, except as provided in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You
must test additional locomotives if any
locomotives fail to meet any standard.
Test 2 more locomotives for each failing
locomotive, but stop testing if the total
number of locomotives tested equals 10.
(2) If an engine family has been
certified using carry over emission data
from a family that has been previously
tested under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section (and we have not ordered or
begun to negotiate remedial action of
that family), you need to test only one
locomotive per engine family. If that
locomotive fails to meet applicable
standards for any pollutant, testing for
that engine family must be conducted as
outlined under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) You may ask us to allow you to
test more locomotives than the
minimum number described above or
may concede failure before testing 10
locomotives.
(b) Compliance criteria. We will
consider failure rates, average emission
levels and the existence of any defects
among other factors in determining
whether to pursue remedial action. We
may order a recall pursuant to 40 CFR
part 1068 before testing reaches the
tenth locomotive.
(c) Collection of in-use locomotives.
Procure in-use locomotives that have
been operated for 50 to 75 percent of the
locomotive’s useful life for testing under
this subpart. Complete testing required
by this section for any engine family
before useful life of the locomotives in
the engine family passes.
(Note: § 1033.820 specifies that railroads
must make reasonable efforts to enable you
to perform this testing.)
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.420 Maintenance, procurement and
testing of in-use locomotives.
(a) A test locomotive must have a
maintenance history that is
representative of actual in-use
conditions, and identical or equivalent
to your recommended emission-related
maintenance requirements.
(1) When procuring locomotives for
in-use testing, ask the end users about
the accumulated usage, maintenance,
operating conditions, and storage of the
test locomotives.
(2) Your selection of test locomotives
is subject to our approval. Maintain the
information you used to procure
locomotives for in-use testing in the
same manner as is required in
§ 1033.250.
(b) You may perform minimal set-tospec maintenance on a test locomotive
before conducting in-use testing.
Maintenance may include only that
which is listed in the owner’s
instructions for locomotives with the
amount of service and age of the
acquired test locomotive. Maintain
documentation of all maintenance and
adjustments.
(c) If the locomotive selected for
testing is equipped with emission
diagnostics as described in § 1033.110
and the MIL is illuminated, you may
read the code and repair the
malfunction to the degree that an
owner/operator would be required to
repair the malfunction under
§ 1033.815.
(d) Results of at least one valid set of
emission tests using the test procedure
described in subpart F of this part are
required for each in-use locomotive.
(e) If in-use testing results show that
an in-use locomotive fails to comply
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
with any applicable emission standards,
you must determine the reason for
noncompliance and report your findings
in the quarterly in-use test result report
described in § 1033.425.
§ 1033.425 In-use test program reporting
requirements.
(a) Within 90 days of completion of
testing, send us all emission test results
generated from the in-use testing
program. Report all of the following
information for each locomotive tested:
(1) Engine family, and configuration.
(2) Locomotive and engine models.
(3) Locomotive and engine serial
numbers.
(4) Date of manufacture or
remanufacture, as applicable.
(5) Megawatt-hours of use (or miles,
as applicable).
(6) Date and time of each test attempt.
(7) Results of all emission testing.
(8) Results (if any) of each voided or
failed test attempt.
(9) Summary of all maintenance and/
or adjustments performed.
(10) Summary of all modifications
and/or repairs.
(11) Determinations of
noncompliance.
(12) The following signed statement
and endorsement by an authorized
representative of your company.
We submit this report under sections
208 and 213 of the Clean Air Act. Our
in-use testing conformed completely
with the requirements of 40 CFR part
1033. All the information in this report
is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I know of the penalties for
violating the Clean Air Act and the
regulations. (Authorized Company
Representative)
(b) Report to us within 90 days of
completion of testing the following
information for each engine family
tested:
(1) The serial numbers of all
locomotives that were excluded from
the test sample because they did not
meet the maintenance requirements of
§ 1033.420.
(2) The owner of each locomotive
identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section (or other entity responsible for
the maintenance of the locomotive).
(3) The specific reasons why the
locomotives were excluded from the test
sample.
(c) Submit the information outlined in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
electronically using an approved format.
We may exempt you from this
requirement upon written request with
supporting justification.
(d) Send all testing reports and
requests for approvals to the Designated
Compliance Officer.
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16059
Subpart F—Test Procedures
§ 1033.501
General provisions.
(a) Except as specified in this subpart,
use the equipment and procedures for
compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR
part 1065 to determine whether your
locomotives meet the duty-cycle
emission standards in § 1033.101. Use
the applicable duty cycles specified in
this subpart. Measure emissions of all
the pollutants we regulate in § 1033.101.
The general test procedure is the
procedure specified in 40 CFR part 1065
for steady-state discrete-mode cycles.
However, if you use the optional
ramped modal cycle in § 1033.514,
follow the procedures for ramped modal
testing in 40 CFR part 1065. The
following exceptions from the 1065
procedures apply:
(1) You must average power and
emissions over the sampling periods
specified in this subpart for both
discrete-mode testing and ramped
modal testing.
(2) The test cycle is considered to be
steady-state with respect to operator
demand rather than engine speed and
load.
(3) The provisions related to engine
mapping and duty cycle generation (40
CFR 1065.510 and 1065.512) are not
applicable to testing of complete
locomotives or locomotive engines
because locomotive operation and
locomotive duty cycles are based on
operator demand via locomotive notch
settings rather than engine speeds and
loads. The cycle validation criteria (40
CFR 1065.514) are not applicable to
testing of complete locomotives but do
apply for dynamometer testing of
engines.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) This part allows (with certain
limits) testing of either a complete
locomotive or a separate uninstalled
engine. When testing a locomotive, you
must test the complete locomotive in its
in-use configuration, except that you
may disconnect the power output and
fuel input for the purpose of testing.
(d) For locomotives subject to smoke
standards, measure smoke emissions
using the procedures in § 1033.520.
(e) Use the applicable fuel listed in 40
CFR part 1065, subpart H, to perform
valid tests.
(1) For diesel-fueled locomotives, use
the appropriate diesel fuel specified in
40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, for
emission testing. The applicable diesel
test fuel is either the ultra low-sulfur
diesel or low-sulfur diesel fuel, as
specified in § 1033.101. Identify the test
fuel in your application for certification
and ensure that the fuel inlet label is
consistent with your selection of the test
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16060
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
fuel (see §§ 1033.101 and 1033.135). For
example, do not test with ultra lowsulfur diesel fuel if you intend to label
your locomotives to allow use of diesel
fuel with sulfur concentrations up to
500 ppm.
(2) You may ask to use as a test fuel
commercially available diesel fuel
similar but not identical to the
applicable fuel specified in 40 CFR part
1065, subpart H. If your locomotive uses
sulfur-sensitive technology, you may
not use an in-use fuel that has a lower
sulfur content than the range specified
for the otherwise applicable test fuel in
40 CFR part 1065. If your locomotive
does not use sulfur-sensitive
technology, we may allow you to use an
in-use fuel that has a lower sulfur
content than the range specified for the
otherwise applicable test fuel in 40 CFR
part 1065, but may require that you
correct PM emissions to account for the
sulfur differences.
(3) For service accumulation, use the
test fuel or any commercially available
fuel that is representative of the fuel that
in-use locomotives will use.
(f) See § 1033.504 for information
about allowable ambient testing
conditions for testing.
(g) You may use special or alternate
procedures to the extent we allow as
them under 40 CFR 1065.10. In some
cases, we allow you to use procedures
that are less precise or less accurate than
the specified procedures if they do not
affect your ability to show that your
locomotives comply with the applicable
emission standards. This generally
requires emission levels to be far
enough below the applicable emission
standards so that any errors caused by
greater imprecision or inaccuracy do not
affect your ability to state
unconditionally that the locomotives
meet all applicable emission standards.
(h) This subpart is addressed to you
as a manufacturer/remanufacturer, but it
applies equally to anyone who does
testing for you, and to us when we
perform testing to determine if your
locomotives meet emission standards.
(i) We may also perform other testing
as allowed by the Clean Air Act.
(j) For passenger locomotives that can
generate hotel power from the main
propulsion engine, the locomotive must
comply with the emission standards
when in either hotel or non-hotel
setting.
§ 1033.503
Auxiliary power units.
If your locomotive is equipped with
an auxiliary power unit (APU) that
operates during an idle shutdown mode,
you must account for the APU’s
emissions rates as specified in this
section.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(a) Adjust the locomotive main
engine’s idle emission rate (g/hr) as
specified in § 1033.520. Add the APU
emission rate (g/hr) that you determine
under paragraph (b) of this section. Use
the locomotive main engine’s idle
power as specified in § 1033.520.
(b) Determine the representative
emission rate for the APU using one of
the following methods.
(1) Installed APU tested separately. If
you separately measure emission rates
(g/hr) for each pollutant from the APU
installed in the locomotive, you may use
the measured emissions rates (g/hr) as
the locomotive’s idle emissions rates
when the locomotive is shutdown and
the APU is operating. For all testing
other than in-use testing, apply
appropriate deterioration factors to the
measured emission rates. You may ask
to carryover APU emission data for a
previous test, or use data for the same
APU installed on locomotives in
another engine family.
(2) Uninstalled APU tested separately.
If you separately measure emission rates
(g/hr) over an appropriate duty-cycle for
each pollutant from the APU when it is
not installed in the locomotive, you may
use the measured emissions rates (g/hr)
as the locomotive’s idle emissions rates
when the locomotive is shutdown and
the APU is operating. For the purpose
of this paragraph (2), an appropriate
duty-cycle is one that approximates the
APU engine’s cycle-weighted power
when operating in the locomotive.
Apply appropriate deterioration factors
to the measured emission rates. You
may ask to carryover APU emission data
for a previous test, or use data for the
same APU installed on locomotives in
another engine family.
(3) APU engine certification data. If
the engine used for the APU has been
certified to EPA emission standards you
may calculate the APU’s emissions
based upon existing EPA-certification
information about the APU’s engine. In
this case, calculate the APU’s emissions
as follows:
(i) For each pollutant determine the
brake-specific standard/FEL to which
the APU engine was originally EPAcertified.
(ii) Determine the APU engine’s cycleweighted power when operating in the
locomotive.
(iii) Multiply each of the APU’s
applicable brake-specific standards/
FELs by the APU engine’s cycleweighted power. The results are the
APU’s emissions rates (in g/hr).
(iv) Use these emissions rates as the
locomotive’s idle emissions rates when
the locomotive is shutdown and the
APU is running. Do not apply a
deterioration factor to these values.
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(4) Other. You may ask us to approve
an alternative means to account for APU
emissions.
§ 1033.504
Ambient conditions.
This section specifies the allowable
ambient conditions of temperature,
pressure, and humidity under which
testing may be performed to determine
compliance with the emission standards
of § 1068.101. Manufacturers/
remanufacturers may ask to perform
testing at conditions other than those
allowed by this section. We will allow
such testing provided it does not affect
your ability to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable standards. See
§§ 1033.101 and 1033.115 for more
information about the requirements that
apply at other conditions.
(a) Temperature. Testing may be
performed with ambient temperatures
from 15.5 °C (60 °F) to 40.5 °C (105 °F).
Do not correct emissions for
temperature effects within this range. If
we allow you to perform testing at lower
ambient temperatures, you must correct
NOX emissions for temperature effects,
consistent with good engineering
judgment. For example, if the intake air
temperature (at the manifold) is lower at
the test temperature than at 15.5 °C, you
generally will need to adjust your
measured NOX emissions upward to
account for the effect of the lower intake
air temperature. However, if you
maintain a constant manifold air
temperature, you will generally not
need to correct emissions.
(b) Altitude/pressure. Testing may be
performed with ambient pressures from
88.000 kPa to 103.325 kPa. This is
intended to correspond to altitudes up
to 4000 feet above sea level. Do not
correct emissions for pressure effects
within this range.
(c) Humidity. Testing may be
performed with any ambient humidity
level. Correct NOX emissions as
specified in 40 CFR 1065.670. Do not
correct any other emissions for
humidity effects.
(d) Wind. If you test outdoors, use
good engineering judgment to ensure
that excessive wind does not affect your
emission measurements. Winds are
excessive if they disturb the size, shape,
or location of the exhaust plume in the
region where exhaust samples are
drawn or where the smoke plume is
measured, or otherwise cause any
dilution of the exhaust. Tests may be
conducted if wind shielding is placed
adjacent to the exhaust plume to
prevent bending, dispersion, or any
other distortion of the exhaust plume as
it passes through the optical unit or
through the sample probe.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
§ 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
16061
of each sampling period and terminate
sampling once the minimum time in
each test mode is reached, ± 5 seconds.
(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test
at the start of the test mode A. Continue
collecting smoke data until the
completion of test mode 8. Refer to
§ 1033.101 to determine applicability of
smoke testing and § 1033.515 for details
on how to conduct a smoke test.
(5) Begin proportional sampling of PM
emissions at the beginning of each
sampling period and terminate sampling
once the minimum time in each test
mode is reached, ± 5 seconds.
(6) Proceed through each test mode in
the order specified in Table 1 of this
section until the locomotive test cycle is
completed.
(7) At the end of each numbered test
mode, you may continue to operate
sampling and dilution systems to allow
corrections for the sampling system’s
response time.
(8) Following the completion of Mode
8, conduct the post sampling procedures
in § 1065.530. Note that cycle validation
criteria do not apply to testing of
complete locomotives.
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.510.—LOCOMOTIVE TEST CYCLE
Test mode
Notch setting
Time in mode
(minutes) 1
Pre-test idle ..............................
A ...............................................
B ...............................................
C ...............................................
1 ...............................................
2 ...............................................
3 ...............................................
4 ...............................................
5 ...............................................
6 ...............................................
7 ...............................................
8 ...............................................
Lowest idle setting ..................
Low idle 2 ................................
Normal idle .............................
Dynamic brake 2 .....................
Notch 1 ...................................
Notch 2 ...................................
Notch 3 ...................................
Notch 4 ...................................
Notch 5 ...................................
Notch 6 ...................................
Notch 7 ...................................
Notch 8 ...................................
10 to 15 ..................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
5 to 10 ....................................
10 to 15 ..................................
1 The
Sample averaging period for emissions 1
Not applicable
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
300 ± 5 seconds
600 ± 5 seconds
time in each notch and sample averaging period may be extended as needed to allow for collection of a sufficiently large PM sample.
if not so equipped.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2 Omit
(f) There are two approaches for
sampling PM emissions during discretemode steady-state testing as described
in this paragraph (f).
(1) Engines certified to a PM
standard/FEL 0.05 g/bhp-hr. Use a
separate PM filter sample for each test
mode of the locomotive test cycle
according to the procedures specified in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
section. You may ask to use a shorter
sampling period if the total mass
expected to be collected would cause
unacceptably high pressure drop across
the filter before reaching the end of the
required sampling time. We will not
allow sampling times less than 60
seconds. When we conduct locomotive
emission tests, we will adhere to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
time limits for each of the numbered
modes in Table 1 of § 1033.510.
(2) Engines certified to a PM
standard/FEL < 0.05 g/bhp-hr. (i) You
may use separate PM filter samples for
each test mode as described in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section; however,
we recommend that you do not do so.
The low rate of sample filter loading
will result in very long sampling times
and the large number of filter samples
may induce uncertainty stack-up that
will lead to unacceptable PM
measurement accuracy. Instead, we
recommend that you measure PM
emissions as specified in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this section.
(ii) You may use a single PM filter for
sampling PM over all of the test modes
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of the locomotive test cycle as specified
in this paragraph. Vary the sample time
to be proportional the applicable linehaul or switch weighting factors
specified in § 1033.520 for each mode.
The minimum sampling time for each
mode is 400 seconds multiplied by the
weighting factor. For example, for a
mode with a weighting factor of 0.030,
the minimum sampling time is 12.0
seconds. PM sampling in each mode
must be proportional to engine exhaust
flow as specified in 40 CFR part 1065.
Begin proportional sampling of PM
emissions at the beginning of each test
mode as is specified in paragraph (c) of
this section. End the sampling period
for each test mode so that sampling
times are proportional to the weighting
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16062
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
factors for the applicable duty cycles. If
necessary, you may extend the time
limit for each of the test modes beyond
the sampling times in Table 1 of
§ 1033.510 to increase the sampled mass
of PM emissions or to account for
proper weighting of the PM emission
sample over the entire cycle, using good
engineering judgment.
(g) This paragraph (g) describes how
to test locomotive engines when not
installed in a locomotive. Note that the
test procedures for dynamometer engine
testing of locomotive engines are
intended to produce emission
measurements that are essentially
identical to emission measurements
produced during testing of complete
locomotives using the same engine
configuration. The following
requirements apply for all engine tests:
(1) Specify a second-by-second set of
engine speed and load points that are
representative of in-use locomotive
operation for each of the set-points of
the locomotive test cycle described in
Table 1 of § 1033.510, including
transitions from one notch to the next.
This is your reference cycle for
validating your cycle. You may ignore
points between the end of the sampling
period for one mode and the point at
which you change the notch setting to
begin the next mode.
(2) Keep the temperature of the air
entering the engine after any charge air
cooling to within5 °C of the typical
intake air temperature when the engine
is operated in the locomotive under
similar ambient conditions.
(3) Proceed with testing as specified
for testing complete locomotives as
specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of
this section.
§ 1033.514
cycles.
Alternative ramped modal
(a) Locomotive testing over a ramped
modal cycle is intended to improve
measurement accuracy at low emission
levels by allowing the use of batch
sampling of PM and gaseous emissions
over multiple locomotive notch settings.
Ramped modal cycles combine multiple
test modes of a discrete-mode steadystate into a single sample period. Time
in notch is varied to be proportional to
weighting factors. The ramped modal
cycle for line-haul locomotives is shown
in Table 1 of this section. The ramped
modal cycle for switch locomotives is
shown in Table 2 of this section. Both
ramped modal cycles consist of a warmup followed by three test phases that are
each weighted in a manner that
maintains the duty cycle weighting of
the line-haul and switch locomotive
duty cycles in § 1033.520. You may use
ramped modal cycle testing for any
locomotives certified under this part.
(b) Ramped modal testing requires
continuous gaseous analyzers and three
separate PM filters (one for each phase).
You may collect a single batch sample
for each test phase, but you must also
measure gaseous emissions
continuously to allow calculation of
notch caps as required under
§ 1033.101.
(c) You may operate the engine in any
way you choose to warm it up. Then
follow the provisions of 40 CFR part
1065, subpart F for general pre-test
procedures (including engine and
sampling system pre-conditioning).
(d) Begin the test by operating the
locomotive over the pre-test portion of
the cycle.
(e) Start the test according to 40 CFR
1065.530.
(1) Each test phase begins when
operator demand is set to the first
operator demand setting of each test
phase of the ramped modal cycle. Each
test phase ends when the time in mode
is reached for the last mode in the test
phase.
(2) For PM emissions (and other batch
sampling), the sample period over
which emissions for the phase are
averaged generally begins within 10
seconds after the operator demand is
changed to start the test phase and ends
within 5 seconds of the sampling time
for the test mode is reached. (See Table
1 of this section.) You may ask to delay
the start of the sample period to account
for sample system residence times
longer than 10 seconds.
(3) Use good engineering judgment
when transitioning between phases.
(i) You should come as close as
possible to simultaneously:
(A) Ending batch sampling of the
previous phase.
(B) Starting batch sampling of the next
phase.
(C) Changing the operator demand to
the notch setting for the first mode in
the next phase.
(ii) Avoid the following:
(A) Overlapping batch sampling of the
two phases.
(B) An unnecessarily long delay
before starting the next phase.
(iii) For example, the following
sequence would generally be
appropriate:
(A) End batch sampling for phase 2
after 240 seconds in notch 7.
(B) Switch the operator demand to
notch 8 one second later.
(C) Begin batch sampling for phase 3
one second after switching to notch 8.
(4) If applicable, begin the smoke test
at the start of the first test phase of the
applicable ramped modal cycle.
Continue collecting smoke data until the
completion of final test phase. Refer to
§ 1033.101 to determine applicability of
the smoke standards and § 1033.515 for
details on how to conduct a smoke test.
(5) Proceed through each test phase of
the applicable ramped modal cycle in
the order specified until the test is
completed.
(6) If you must void a test phase you
may repeat the phase. To do so, begin
with a warm engine operating at the
notch setting for the last mode in the
previous phase. You do not need to
repeat later phases if they were valid.
(Note: you must report test results for all
voided tests and test phases.)
(7) Following the completion of the
third test phase of the applicable
ramped modal cycle, conduct the post
sampling procedures specified in 40
CFR 1065.530.
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.514.—LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE RAMPED MODAL CYCLE
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
RMC Test phase
Weighting
factor
Pre-test idle ..............................................................
Phase 1 ....................................................................
(Idle test) ..................................................................
RMC
mode
NA
0.380
....................
NA
A
B
Time in
mode
(seconds)
600 to 900
600
600
Notch setting
Lowest idle setting
Low Idle 1
Normal Idle
Phase Transition
Phase 2 ....................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
....................
....................
....................
0.458
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
C
1
2
3
1000
520
520
416
Sfmt 4702
Dynamic Brake 2
Notch 1
Notch 2
Notch 3
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16063
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.514.—LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVE RAMPED MODAL CYCLE—Continued
Weighting
factor
RMC Test phase
RMC
mode
....................
....................
....................
....................
4
5
6
7
Time in
mode
(seconds)
352
304
312
240
Notch setting
Notch
Notch
Notch
Notch
4
5
6
7
Phase Transition
Phase 3 ....................................................................
1 Operate
2 Operate
0.162
8
600
Notch 8
at normal idle for modes A and B if not equipped with multiple idle settings.
at normal idle if not equipped with a dynamic brake.
TABLE 2 OF § 1033.514.—SWITCH LOMOTIVE RAMPED MODAL CYCLE
RMC Test phase
Weighting
factor
Pre-test idle ..............................................................
Phase 1 ....................................................................
(Idle test) ..................................................................
RMC
mode
NA
0.598
....................
NA
A
B
Time in
mode
(seconds)
600 to 900
600
600
Notch setting
Lowest idle setting
Low Idle 1
Normal Idle
Phase Transition
Phase 2 ....................................................................
....................
....................
0.377
....................
....................
1
2
3
4
5
868
861
406
252
252
Notch
Notch
Notch
Notch
Notch
1
2
3
4
5
Phase Transition
Phase 3 ....................................................................
1 Operate
6
7
8
1080
144
576
Notch 6
Notch 7
Notch 8
at normal idle for modes A and B if not equipped with multiple idle settings.
§ 1033.515
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
....................
0.025
....................
Smoke testing.
This section describes the equipment
and procedures for testing for smoke
emissions when required.
(a) This section specifies how to
measure smoke emissions using a fullflow, open path light extinction
smokemeter. A light extinction meter
consists of a built-in light beam that
traverses the exhaust smoke plume that
issues from the exhaust duct. The light
beam must be at right angles to the axis
of the plume. Where the exhaust is not
circular at its discharge, align the light
beam to go through the plume along the
hydraulic diameter, which is defined in
1065.1001. The light extinction meter
must meet the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section and the
following requirements:
(1) Use an incandescent light source
with a color temperature range of 2800K
to 3250K, or a light source with a
spectral peak between 550 and 570
nanometers.
(2) Collimate the light beam to a
nominal diameter of 3 centimeters and
an angle of divergence within a 6 degree
included angle.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
percent resolution and also
simultaneously record operator demand
set point (e.g., notch position). Compare
the recorded opacities, uncorrected for
path length, to the smoke standards
applicable to your locomotive.
(d) You may use a partial flow
sampling smokemeter if you correct for
the path length of your exhaust plume.
If you use a partial flow sampling meter,
follow the instrument manufacturer’s
installation, calibration, operation, and
maintenance procedures.
§ 1033.520
Duty cycles and calculations.
This section describes how to apply
the duty cycle to measured emission
rates to calculate cycle-weighted average
emission rates.
(a) Standard duty cycles and
calculations. Tables 1 and 2 of this
section show the duty cycle to use to
calculate cycle-weighted average
emission rates for locomotives equipped
with two idle settings, eight propulsion
notches, and at least one dynamic brake
notch and tested using the Locomotive
Test Cycle. Use the appropriate
weighting factors for your locomotive
application and calculate cycleweighted average emissions as specified
in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G.
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.520.—STANDARD DUTY CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR CALCULATING EMISSION RATES FOR
LOCOMOTIVES WITH MULTIPLE IDLE SETTINGS
Notch setting
Test mode
Line-haul
weighting
factors
Low Idle ...........................................................................................................................
Normal Idle ......................................................................................................................
Dynamic ...........................................................................................................................
Brake ................................................................................................................................
Notch 1 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 2 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 3 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 4 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 5 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 6 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 7 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 8 ............................................................................................................................
A
B
C
....................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.190
0.190
0.125
....................
0.065
0.065
0.052
0.044
0.038
0.039
0.030
0.162
Line-haul
weighting
factors
(no dynamic
brake)
Switch
weighting
factors
0.190
0.315
NA
....................
0.065
0.065
0.052
0.044
0.038
0.039
0.030
0.162
0.299
0.299
0.000
....................
0.124
0.123
0.058
0.036
0.036
0.015
0.002
0.008
TABLE 2 OF § 1033.520.—STANDARD DUTY CYCLE WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR CALCULATING EMISSION RATES FOR
LOCOMOTIVES WITH MULTIPLE IDLE SETTINGS
Test mode
Normal Idle ......................................................................................................................
Dynamic ...........................................................................................................................
Brake ................................................................................................................................
Notch 1 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 2 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 3 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 4 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 5 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 6 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 7 ............................................................................................................................
Notch 8 ............................................................................................................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Notch setting
Line-haul
weighting
factors
A
C
....................
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.380
0.125
....................
0.065
0.065
0.052
0.044
0.038
0.039
0.030
0.162
(b) Idle and dynamic brake notches. If
your locomotive is equipped with two
idle settings and is not equipped with
dynamic brake, use a normal idle
weighting factor of 0.315 for the linehaul cycle. If your locomotive is
equipped with only one idle setting and
no dynamic brake, use an idle weighting
factor of 0.505 for the line-haul cycle.
(c) Nonstandard notches or no
notches. If your locomotive is equipped
with more or less than 8 propulsion
notches, recommend an alternate test
cycle based on the in-use locomotive
configuration. Unless you have data
demonstrating that your locomotive will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Line-haul
weighting
factors
(no dynamic
brake)
Switch
weighting
factors
0.505
NA
....................
0.065
0.065
0.052
0.044
0.038
0.039
0.030
0.162
0.598
0.000
....................
0.124
0.123
0.058
0.036
0.036
0.015
0.002
0.008
TABLE 3 OF § 1033.520.—STANDARD
NOTCH POWER LEVELS EXPRESSED
AS A PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM
TEST POWER
Normal Idle ..............................
Dynamic Brake ........................
Notch 1 ....................................
Notch 2 ....................................
Notch 3 ....................................
Notch 4 ....................................
Notch 5 ....................................
Notch 6 ....................................
Notch 7 ....................................
Notch 8 ....................................
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
0.00%
0.00%
4.50%
11.50%
23.50%
35.00%
48.50%
64.00%
85.00%
100.00%
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(d) Optional Ramped Modal Cycle
Testing. Tables 1 and 2 of § 1033.514
show the weighting factors to use to
calculate cycle-weighted average
emission rates for the applicable
locomotive ramped modal cycle. Use
the weighting factors for the ramped
modal cycle for your locomotive
application and calculate cycleweighted average emissions as specified
in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G.
(e) Automated Start-Stop. For
locomotive equipped with features that
shut the engine off after prolonged
periods of idle, multiply the measured
idle mass emission rate over the idle
portion of the applicable test cycles by
a factor equal to one minus the
estimated fraction reduction in idling
time that will result in use from the
shutdown feature. Do not apply this
factor to the weighted idle power.
Application of this adjustment is subject
to our approval.
(f) Multi-engine locomotives. This
paragraph (f) applies for locomotives
using multiple engines where all
engines are identical in all material
respects. In cases where we allow
engine dynamometer testing, you may
test a single engine consistent with good
engineering judgment, as long as you
test it all operating points at which any
of the engines will operate when
installed in the locomotive. Weight the
results to reflect the power demand/
power-sharing of the in-use
configuration for each notch setting.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
develop separate adjustment factors for
different configurations within an
engine family. If you use adjustment
factors for certification, you must
identify the frequency factor, F, from
paragraph (b) of this section in your
application for certification and use the
adjustment factors in all testing for that
engine family. You may use carryover or
carry-across data to establish adjustment
factors for an engine family, as
described in § 1033.235, consistent with
good engineering judgment. All
adjustment factors for regeneration are
additive. Determine adjustment factors
separately for different test segments as
described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of
this section. You may use either of the
following different approaches for
locomotives that use aftertreatment with
infrequent regeneration events:
(1) You may disregard this section if
you determine that regeneration does
not significantly affect emission levels
for an engine family (or configuration)
or if it is not practical to identify when
regeneration occurs. If you do not use
adjustment factors under this section,
your locomotives must meet emission
standards for all testing, without regard
to regeneration.
(2) You may ask us to approve an
alternate methodology to account for
regeneration events. We will generally
limit approval to cases in which your
locomotives use aftertreatment
technology with extremely infrequent
regeneration and you are unable to
apply the provisions of this section.
(b) Calculating average emission
factors. Calculate the average emission
factor (EFA) based on the following
equation:
EFA = (F)(EFH) + (1¥F)(EFL)
Where:
F = The frequency of the regeneration event
in terms of the fraction of tests during
which the regeneration occurs. You may
determine F from in-use operating data
or running replicate tests.
EFH = Measured emissions from a test
segment in which the regeneration
occurs.
EFL = Measured emissions from a test
segment in which the regeneration does
not occur.
(c) Applying adjustment factors.
Apply adjustment factors based on
whether regeneration occurs during the
test run. You must be able to identify
regeneration in a way that is readily
apparent during all testing.
(1) If regeneration does not occur
during a test segment, add an upward
adjustment factor to the measured
emission rate. Determine the upward
adjustment factor (UAF) using the
following equation:
UAF = EFA¥EFL
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16065
(2) If regeneration occurs or starts to
occur during a test segment, subtract a
downward adjustment factor from the
measured emission rate. Determine the
downward adjustment factor (DAF)
using the following equation:
DAF = EFH¥EFA
(d) Sample calculation. If EFL is 0.10
g/bhp-hr, EFH is 0.50 g/bhp-hr, and F is
0.1 (the regeneration occurs once for
each ten tests), then:
EFA = (0.1)(0.5 g/bhp-hr) + (1.0¥0.1)(0.1 g/
bhp-hr) = 0.14 g/bhp-hr.
UAF = 0.14 g/bhp-hr¥0.10 g/bhp-hr = 0.04
g/bhp-hr.
DAF = 0.50 g/bhp-hr¥0.14 g/bhp-hr = 0.36
g/bhp-hr.
(e) Ramped modal testing. Develop
separate adjustment factors for each test
phase. If a regeneration has started but
has not been completed when you reach
the end of a test phase, use good
engineering judgment to reduce your
downward adjustments to be
proportional to the emission impact that
occurred in the test phases.
(f) Discrete-mode testing. Develop
separate adjustment factors for each test
mode. If a regeneration has started but
has not been completed when you reach
the end of the sampling time for a test
mode extend the sampling period for
that mode until the regeneration is
completed.
Subpart G—Special Compliance
Provisions
§ 1033.601
General compliance provisions.
Locomotive manufacturer/
remanufacturers, as well as owners and
operators of locomotives subject to the
requirements of this part, and all other
persons, must observe the provisions of
this part, the requirements and
prohibitions in 40 CFR part 1068, and
the provisions of the Clean Air Act. The
provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 apply for
locomotives as specified in that part,
except as otherwise specified in this
section.
(a) Meaning of manufacturer. When
used in 40 CFR part 1068, the term
‘‘manufacturer’’ means manufacturer
and/or remanufacturer.
(b) Engine rebuilding. The provisions
of 40 CFR 1068.120 do not apply when
remanufacturing locomotives.
(c) Exemptions. (1) The exemption
provisions of 40 CFR 1068.240,
1068.250, 1068.255, and 1068.260 do
not apply for domestic or imported
locomotives.
(2) The provisions for importing
engines and equipment under the
identical configuration exemption of 40
CFR 1068.315(i) do not apply for
locomotives.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16066
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) The provisions for importing
engines and equipment under the
ancient engine exemption of 40 CFR
1068.315(j) do not apply for
locomotives.
(d) SEAs, defect reporting, and recall.
The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068,
subparts E and F, apply to certificate
holders for locomotives as specified in
that part. When there are multiple
persons meeting the definition of
manufacturer or remanufacturer, each
person meeting the definition of
manufacturer or remanufacturer must
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 1068, subparts E and F, as needed
so that the certificate holder can fulfill
its obligations under those subparts.
(e) Introduction into commerce. The
placement of a new locomotive or new
locomotive engine back into service
following remanufacturing is a violation
of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1), unless it has
a valid certificate of conformity for its
model year and the required label.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.610
Small railroad provisions.
In general, the provisions of this part
apply for all locomotives, including
those owned by Class II and Class III
railroads. This section describes how
these provisions apply for railroads
meeting the definition of ‘‘small
railroad’’ in § 1033.901. (Note: The term
‘‘small railroad’’ excludes some Class II
and Class III railroads, such as those
owned by large parent companies.)
(a) Locomotives become subject to the
provisions of this part when they
become ‘‘new’’ as defined in § 1033.901.
Under that definition, a locomotive is
‘‘new’’ when first assembled, and
generally becomes ‘‘new’’ again when
remanufactured. As an exception to this
general concept, locomotives that are
owned and operated by railroads
meeting the definition of ‘‘small
railroad’’ in § 1033.901 do not become
‘‘new’’ when remanufactured, unless
they were previously certified to EPA
emission standards.
(b) The provisions of subpart I of this
part apply to all owners and operators
of locomotives subject to this part 1033.
However, the regulations of that subpart
specify some provisions that apply only
for Class I freight railroads, and others
that apply differently to Class I freight
railroads and other railroads.
(c) We may exempt new locomotives
that are owned and operated by small
railroads from the prohibition against
remanufacturing a locomotive without a
certificate of conformity as specified in
this paragraph (c). This exemption is
only available in cases where no
certified remanufacturing system is
available for the locomotive. For
example, it is possible that no
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
remanufacturer will certify a system for
very old locomotive models that
comprise a tiny fraction of the fleet and
that are remanufactured infrequently.
Send your request for such exemptions
to the Designated Compliance Officer.
We may consider the issue of excessive
costs in determining the availability of
certified systems. If we grant this
exemption, you are required to return
the locomotive to its previously certified
configuration.
§ 1033.615 Voluntarily subjecting
locomotives to the standards of this part.
The provisions of this section specify
the cases in which an owner or
manufacturer of a locomotive or similar
piece of equipment can subject it to the
standards and requirements of this part.
Once the locomotive or equipment
becomes subject to the locomotive
standards and requirements of this part,
it remains subject to the standards and
requirements of this part for the
remainder of its service life.
(a) Equipment excluded from the
definition of ‘‘locomotive’’. (1)
Manufacturers/remanufacturers of
equipment that is excluded from the
definition of ‘‘locomotive’’ because of its
total power, but would otherwise meet
the definition of locomotive may ask to
have it considered to be a locomotive.
To do this, submit an application for
certification as specified in subpart C of
this part, explaining why it should be
considered to be a locomotive. If we
approve your request, it will be deemed
to be a locomotive for the remainder of
its service life.
(2) In unusual circumstances, we may
deem other equipment to be
locomotives (at the request of the owner
or manufacturer/remanufacturer) where
such equipment does not conform
completely to the definition of
locomotive, but is functionally
equivalent to a locomotive.
(b) Locomotives excluded from the
definition of ‘‘new’’. Owners of
remanufactured locomotives excluded
from the definition of ‘‘new’’ in
§ 1033.901 under paragraph (2) of that
definition may choose to upgrade their
locomotives to subject their locomotives
to the standards and requirements of
this part by complying with the
specifications of a certified
remanufacturing system, including the
labeling specifications of § 1033.135.
§ 1033.620 Hardship provisions for
manufacturers and remanufacturers.
(a) If you qualify for the economic
hardship provisions specified in 40 CFR
1068.245, we may approve a period of
delayed compliance for up to one model
year total.
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.625 Special certification provisions
for non-locomotive-specific engines.
You may certify freshly manufactured
or remanufactured locomotives using
non-locomotive-specific engines (as
defined in § 1033.901) using the normal
certification procedures of this part.
Locomotives certified in that way are
generally treated the same as other
locomotives, except where specified
otherwise. The provisions of this section
provide for design certification to the
locomotive standards in this part for
locomotives using engines included in
engine families certified under 40 CFR
part 1039 (or part 89) in limited
circumstances.
(a) Remanufactured or freshly
manufactured switch locomotives
powered by non-locomotive-specific
engines may be certified by design
without the test data required by
§ 1033.235 if all of the following are
true:
(1) Before being installed in the
locomotive, the engines were covered by
a certificate of conformity issued under
40 CFR Part 1039 (or part 89) that is
effective for the calendar year in which
the manufacture or remanufacture
occurs. You may use engines certified
during the previous year if it is subject
to the same standards. You may not
make any modifications to the engines
unless we approve them.
(2) The engines were certified to
standards that are numerically lower
then the applicable locomotive
standards of this part.
(3) More engines are reasonably
projected to be sold and used under the
certificate for non-locomotive use than
for use in locomotives.
(4) The number of such locomotives
certified under this section does not
exceed 15 in any three-year period. We
may waive this sales limit for
locomotive models that have previously
demonstrated compliance with the
locomotive standards of § 1033.101 inuse.
(5) We approved the application as
specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(b) To certify your locomotives by
design under this section, submit your
application as specified in § 1033.205,
except include the following instead of
the locomotive test data otherwise
required:
(1) A description of the engines to be
used, including the name of the engine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
manufacturer and engine family
identifier for the engines.
(2) A brief engineering analysis
describing how the engine’s emission
controls will function when installed in
the locomotive throughout the
locomotive’s useful life.
(3) The emission data submitted
under 40 CFR part 1039 (or part 89).
(c) Locomotives certified under this
section are subject to all of the same
requirements of this part unless
specified otherwise in this section. The
engines used in such locomotives are
not considered to be included in the
otherwise applicable engines family of
40 CFR part 1039 (or part 89).
(d) We will approve or deny the
application as specified in subpart C of
this part. For example, we will deny
your application for certification by
design under this section in any case
where we have evidence that your
locomotives will not conform to the
requirements of this part throughout
their useful lives.
§ 1033.630
Staged-assembly exemption.
You may ask us to provide a
temporary exemption to allow you to
complete production of your engines
and locomotives at different facilities, as
long as you maintain control of the
engines until they are in their certified
configuration. We may require you to
take specific steps to ensure that such
locomotives are in their certified
configuration before reaching the
ultimate purchaser. You may request an
exemption under this section in your
application for certification, or in a
separate submission.
§ 1033.640 Provisions for repowered and
refurbished locomotives.
The provisions of this section apply
for locomotives that are produced from
an existing locomotive so that the new
locomotive contains both previously
used parts and parts that have never
been used before. A single existing
locomotive cannot be divided into parts
and combined with new parts to create
more than one remanufactured
locomotive.
(a) Repowered locomotives are used
locomotives in which a freshly
manufactured propulsion engine is
installed. Refurbished locomotives are
new locomotives that are produced
using more unused parts than
previously used parts, as described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The relative amount of previously
used parts is determined as follows:
(1) Identify the parts in the fully
assembled locomotive that have been
previously used and those that have
never been used before.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16067
(2) Weight the unused parts and
previously used parts by the dollar
value of the parts. For example, a single
part valued at $1200 would count the
same as six parts valued at $200 each.
Group parts by system where possible
(such as counting the engine as one
part) if either all the parts in that system
are used or all the parts in that system
are unused.
(3) Sum the values of the unused
parts. Also sum the values of the
previously used parts. The relative
fraction of used parts is the total value
of previously used parts divided by the
combined value of the unused parts and
previously used parts.
(c) If the weighted fraction of the
locomotive that is comprised of
previously used parts is less than 50
percent, then the locomotive is
considered to be a refurbished
locomotive.
(d) If the weighted fraction of the
locomotive that is comprised of
previously used parts is less than 25
percent, then the locomotive is
considered to be a freshly manufactured
locomotive and the date of original
manufacture is the most recent date on
which the locomotive was assembled
using less than 25 percent previously
used parts. (Note: If the weighted
fraction of the locomotive that is
comprised of previously used parts is
greater than or equal to 25 percent, then
the date of original manufacture is
unchanged.) For example:
(1) If you produce a new locomotive
that includes a used frame, but all other
parts are unused, then the locomotive is
considered to be a freshly manufactured
locomotive because the value of the
frame would be less than 25 percent of
the total value of the locomotive. Its
date of original manufacture is the date
on which you complete its assembly.
(2) If you produce a new locomotive
by replacing the engine in a 1990
locomotive with a freshly manufactured
engine, but all other parts are used, then
the locomotive is considered to be a
remanufactured locomotive and its date
of original manufacture is the date on
which assembly was completed in 1990.
(Note: Such a locomotive would also be
considered to be a repowered locomotive.)
§ 1033.650 Incidental use exemption for
Canadian and Mexican locomotives.
You may ask us to exempt from the
requirements and prohibitions of this
part locomotives that are operated
primarily outside of the United States
and that enter the United States
temporarily from Canada or Mexico. We
will approve this exemption only where
we determine that the locomotive’s
operation within the United States will
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16068
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
not be extensive and will be incidental
to its primary operation. For example,
we would generally exempt locomotives
that will not operate more than 25 miles
from the border and will operate in the
United States less than 5 percent of their
operating time. For existing operations,
you must request this exemption before
January 1, 2011. In your request,
identify the locomotives for which you
are requesting an exemption, and
describe their projected use in the
United States. We may grant the
exemption broadly or limit the
exemption to specific locomotives and/
or specific geographic areas. However,
we will typically approve exemptions
for specific rail facilities rather than
specific locomotives. In unusual
circumstances, such as cases in which
new rail facilities are created, we may
approve requests submitted after
January 1, 2011.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
locomotive to the purchaser, owner or
operator of the locomotive at the time of
manufacture or remanufacture; or to
convey control of previously generated
credits from the purchaser, owner or
operator of an individual locomotive to
the manufacturer/remanufacturer at the
time of manufacture/remanufacture.
(d) You may not use emission credits
generated under this subpart to offset
any emissions that exceed an FEL or
standard. This applies for all testing,
including certification testing, in-use
testing, selective enforcement audits,
and other production-line testing.
However, if emissions from a
locomotive exceed an FEL or standard
(for example, during a selective
enforcement audit), you may use
emission credits to recertify the engine
family with a higher FEL that applies
only to future production.
(e) Engine families that use emission
credits for one or more pollutants may
not generate positive emission credits
for another pollutant.
(f) Emission credits may be used in
the model year they are generated or in
future model years. Emission credits
may not be used for past model years.
(g) You may increase or decrease an
FEL during the model year by amending
your application for certification under
§ 1033.225. The new FEL may apply
only to locomotives you have not
already introduced into commerce. Each
locomotive’s emission control
information label must include the
applicable FELs. You must conduct
production line testing to verify that the
emission levels are achieved.
(h) Credits may be generated by any
certifying manufacturer/remanufacturer
and may be held by any of the following
entities:
(1) Locomotive or engine
manufacturers.
(2) Locomotive or engine
remanufacturers.
(3) Locomotive owners.
(4) Locomotive operators.
(5) Other entities after notification to
EPA.
(i) All locomotives that are certified to
an FEL that is different from the
emission standard that would otherwise
apply to the locomotives are required to
comply with that FEL for the remainder
of their service lives, except as allowed
by § 1033.750.
(1) Manufacturers must notify the
purchaser of any locomotive that is
certified to an FEL that is different from
the emission standard that would
otherwise apply that the locomotive is
required to comply with that FEL for the
remainder of its service life.
(2) Remanufacturers must notify the
owner of any locomotive or locomotive
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
engine that is certified to an FEL that is
different from the emission standard
that would otherwise apply that the
locomotive (or the locomotive in which
the engine is used) is required to
comply with that FEL for the remainder
of its service life.
(j) The FEL to which the locomotive
is certified must be included on the
locomotive label required in § 1033.135.
This label must include the notification
specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
§ 1033.705
Calculate emission credits.
The provisions of this section apply
separately for calculating emission
credits for NOX or PM.
(a) Calculate positive emission credits
for an engine family that has an FEL
below the otherwise applicable
standard. Calculate negative emission
credits for an engine family that has an
FEL above the otherwise applicable
standard.
(b) For each participating engine
family, calculate positive or negative
emission credits relative to the
otherwise applicable emission standard.
Prior to the end of year report, round
calculated emission credits to the
nearest one hundredth of a Megagram
(0.01 Mg). Round your end of year
emission credit balance to the nearest
Megagram (Mg). Use consistent units
throughout the calculation. When useful
life is expressed in terms of megawatthrs, calculate credits for each engine
family from the following equation:
Emission credits = (Std—FEL) × (1.341)
× (UL) × (Production) × (Fp) × (10¥3
kW-Mg/MW-g).
Where:
Std = The applicable locomotive and
locomotive engine NOX or PM emission
standard in g/bhp-hr (except that Std =
previous FEL in g/bhp-hr for locomotives
that were certified under this part to an
FEL other than the standard during the
previous useful life).
FEL = The family emission limit for the
engine family in g/bhp-hr.
UL = The sales-weighted average useful life
in megawatt-hours (or the subset of the
engine family for which credits are being
calculated), as specified in the
application for certification.
Production = The number of locomotives
participating in the averaging, banking,
and trading program within the given
engine family during the calendar year
(or the number of locomotives in the
subset of the engine family for which
credits are being calculated). Quarterly
production projections are used for
initial certification. Actual applicable
production/sales volumes are used for
end-of-year compliance determination.
Fp = The proration factor as determined in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) When useful life is expressed in
terms of miles, calculate the useful life
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
in terms of megawatt-hours (UL) by
dividing the useful life in miles by
100,000, and multiplying by the salesweighted average rated power of the
engine family. For example, if your
useful life is 800,000 miles for a family
with an average rated power of 3500 hp,
then your equivalent MW-hr useful life
would be 28,000 MW-hrs. Credits are
calculated using this UL value in the
equations of paragraph (b) of this
section.
(d) The proration factor is an estimate
of the fraction of a locomotive’s service
life that remains as a function of age.
The proration factor is 1.00 for freshly
manufactured locomotives.
(1) The locomotive’s age is the length
of time in years from the date of original
manufacture to the date at which the
remanufacture (for which credits are
being calculated) is completed, rounded
to the next higher year.
(2) The proration factors for line-haul
locomotives ages 1 through 20 are
specified in Table 1 of this section. For
line-haul locomotives more than 20
years old, use the proration factor for 20
year old locomotives. The proration
factors for switch locomotives ages 1
through 40 are specified in Table 2 of
this section. For switch locomotives
more than 40 years old, use the
proration factor for 40 year old
locomotives.
(3) For replacement or repower
engines, the proration factor is based on
the age of the locomotive chassis, not
the age of the engine, except for
remanufactured switch locomotives that
qualify as refurbished. Use a proration
factor of 0.60 for remanufactured switch
locomotives meting the definition of
refurbished. (Note: The proration factor
is 1.00 for all refurbished locomotives
that also meet the definition of freshly
manufactured.)
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.705.—PRORATION
FACTORS FOR LINE-HAUL LOCOMOTIVES
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Locomotive age
(years)
Proration
factor
(Fp)
1 ................................................
2 ................................................
3 ................................................
4 ................................................
5 ................................................
6 ................................................
7 ................................................
8 ................................................
9 ................................................
10 ..............................................
11 ..............................................
12 ..............................................
13 ..............................................
14 ..............................................
15 ..............................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
0.96
0.92
0.88
0.84
0.81
0.77
0.73
0.69
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.54
0.50
0.47
0.43
Jkt 211001
16069
TABLE 1 OF § 1033.705.—PRORATION locomotives to calculate emission
FACTORS FOR LINE-HAUL LOCO- credits:
(1) Locomotives exempted under
MOTIVES—Continued
subpart G of this part or under 40 CFR
part 1068.
Locomotive age
(2) Exported locomotives. You may
(years)
ask to include locomotives sold to
Mexican or Canadian railroads if they
16 ..............................................
0.40
will likely operate within the United
17 ..............................................
0.36
18 ..............................................
0.33 States and you include all such
19 ..............................................
0.30 locomotives (both credit using and
20 ..............................................
0.27 credit generating locomotives).
(3) Locomotives not subject to the
requirements of this part, such as those
TABLE 2 OF § 1033.705.—PRORATION excluded under § 1033.5.
FACTORS FOR SWITCH LOCOMOTIVES
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Any other locomotives, where we
Locomotive age
Proration
indicate elsewhere in this part 1033 that
(years)
factor
they are not to be included in the
1 ................................................
0.98 calculations of this subpart.
Proration
factor
(Fp)
2 ................................................
3 ................................................
4 ................................................
5 ................................................
6 ................................................
7 ................................................
8 ................................................
9 ................................................
10 ..............................................
11 ..............................................
12 ..............................................
13 ..............................................
14 ..............................................
15 ..............................................
16 ..............................................
17 ..............................................
18 ..............................................
19 ..............................................
20 ..............................................
21 ..............................................
22 ..............................................
23 ..............................................
24 ..............................................
25 ..............................................
26 ..............................................
27 ..............................................
28 ..............................................
29 ..............................................
30 ..............................................
31 ..............................................
32 ..............................................
33 ..............................................
34 ..............................................
35 ..............................................
36 ..............................................
37 ..............................................
38 ..............................................
39 ..............................................
40 ..............................................
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.82
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.6
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
(e) In your application for
certification, base your showing of
compliance on projected production
volumes for locomotives that will be
placed into service in the United States.
As described in § 1033.730, compliance
with the requirements of this subpart is
determined at the end of the model year
based on actual production volumes for
locomotives that will be placed into
service in the United States. Do not
include any of the following
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1033.710
Averaging emission credits.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of
emission credits among your engine
families. You may average emission
credits only as allowed by § 1033.740.
(b) You may certify one or more
engine families to an FEL above the
applicable standard, subject to the FEL
caps and other provisions in subpart B
of this part, if you show in your
application for certification that your
projected balance of all emission-credit
transactions in that model year is greater
than or equal to zero.
(c) If you certify an engine family to
an FEL that exceeds the otherwise
applicable standard, you must obtain
enough emission credits to offset the
engine family’s deficit by the due date
for the final report required in
§ 1033.730. The emission credits used to
address the deficit may come from your
other engine families that generate
emission credits in the same model
year, from emission credits you have
banked, or from emission credits you
obtain through trading or by transfer.
§ 1033.715
Banking emission credits.
(a) Banking is the retention of
emission credits by the manufacturer/
remanufacturer generating the emission
credits (or owner/operator, in the case of
transferred credits) for use in averaging,
trading, or transferring in future model
years. You may use banked emission
credits only as allowed by § 1033.740.
(b) In your application for
certification, designate any emission
credits you intend to bank. These
emission credits will be considered
reserved credits. During the model year
and before the due date for the final
report, you may redesignate these
emission credits for averaging or
trading.
(c) You may use banked emission
credits from the previous model year for
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16070
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
averaging, trading, or transferring before
we verify them, but we may revoke
these emission credits if we are unable
to verify them after reviewing your
reports or auditing your records.
(d) Reserved credits become actual
emission credits only when we verify
them after reviewing your final report.
§ 1033.720
Trading emission credits.
(a) Trading is the exchange of
emission credits between certificate
holders. You may use traded emission
credits for averaging, banking, or further
trading transactions. Traded emission
credits may be used only as allowed by
§ 1033.740.
(b) You may trade actual emission
credits as described in this subpart. You
may also trade reserved emission
credits, but we may revoke these
emission credits based on our review of
your records or reports or those of the
company with which you traded
emission credits.
(c) If a negative emission credit
balance results from a transaction, both
the buyer and seller are liable, except in
cases we deem to involve fraud. See
§ 1033.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all
engine families participating in a trade
that results in a manufacturer/
remanufacturer having a negative
balance of emission credits. See
§ 1033.745.
§ 1033.722
Transferring emission credits.
(a) Credit transfer is the conveying of
control over credits, either:
(1) From a certifying manufacturer/
remanufacturer to an owner/operator.
(2) From an owner/operator to a
certifying manufacturer/remanufacturer.
(b) Transferred credits can be:
(1) Used by a certifying manufacturer/
remanufacturer in averaging.
(2) Transferred again within the
model year.
(3) Reserved for later banking.
Transferred credits may not be traded
unless they have been previously
banked.
(c) Owners/operators participating in
credit transfers must submit the reports
specified in § 1033.730.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
including the FEL caps. FELs must be
expressed to the same number of
decimal places as the applicable
standards.
(b) Include the following in your
application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of
your belief, you will not have a negative
balance of emission credits for any
averaging set when all emission credits
are calculated at the end of the year.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected
emission credits (positive or negative)
based on projected production volumes.
If your engine family will generate
positive emission credits, state
specifically where the emission credits
will be applied (for example, to which
engine family they will be applied in
averaging, whether they will be traded,
or whether they will be reserved for
banking). If you have projected negative
emission credits for an engine family,
state the source of positive emission
credits to offset the negative emission
credits. Describe whether the emission
credits are actual or reserved and
whether they will come from averaging,
banking, trading, transferring or a
combination of these. Identify from
which of your engine families or from
which manufacturer/remanufacturer the
emission credits will come.
§ 1033.730
ABT reports.
(a) If any of your engine families are
certified using the ABT provisions of
this subpart, you must send an end-ofyear report within 90 days after the end
of the model year and a final report
within 270 days after the end of the
model year. We may waive the
requirement to send the end-of-year
report, as long as you send the final
report on time.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following information
for each engine family participating in
the ABT program:
(1) Engine family designation.
(2) The emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the engine family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you
changed an FEL during the model year,
identify each FEL you used and
calculate the positive or negative
emission credits under each FEL. Also,
describe how the applicable FEL can be
identified for each locomotive you
produced. For example, you might keep
a list of locomotive identification
numbers that correspond with certain
FEL values.
(4) The projected and actual
production volumes for the model year
that will be placed into service in the
United States as described in
§ 1033.705. If you changed an FEL
during the model year, identify the
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.735
Required records.
(a) You must organize and maintain
your records as described in this
section. We may review your records at
any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this
section for eight years after the due date
for the end-of-year report. You may not
use emission credits on any engines if
you do not keep all the records required
under this section. You must therefore
keep these records to continue to bank
valid credits. Store these records in any
format and on any media, as long as you
can promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we
require in § 1033.725 and § 1033.730.
(d) Keep the following additional
records for each locomotive you
produce that generates or uses emission
credits under the ABT program:
(1) Engine family designation.
(2) Locomotive identification number.
(3) FEL.
(4) Rated power and useful life.
(5) Build date and assembly plant.
(6) Purchaser and destination.
(e) We may require you to keep
additional records or to send us relevant
information not required by this section.
§ 1033.740
Credit restrictions.
Use of emission credits generated
under this part 1033 or 40 CFR part 92
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
is restricted depending on the standards
against which they were generated.
(a) Credits from 40 CFR part 92. (1)
PM credits generated under 40 CFR part
92 may not be used under this part.
(2) NOX credits generated under 40
CFR part 92 may be used under this part
in the same manner as NOX credits
generated under this part.
(b) General cycle restriction.
Locomotives subject to both switch
cycle standards and line-haul cycle
standards (such as Tier 2 locomotives)
may generate both switch and line-haul
credits. Except as specified in paragraph
(c) of this section, such credits may only
be used to show compliance with
standards for the same cycle for which
they were generated. For example, a
Tier 2 locomotive that is certified to a
switch cycle NOX FEL below the
applicable switch cycle standard and a
line-haul cycle NOX FEL below the
applicable line-haul cycle standard may
generate switch cycle NOX credits for
use in complying with switch cycle
NOX standards and line-haul cycle NOX
credits for use in complying with linehaul cycle NOX standards.
(c) Single cycle locomotives. As
specified in § 1033.101, Tier 0 switch
locomotives, Tier 3 and later switch
locomotives, and Tier 4 and later linehaul locomotives are not subject to both
switch cycle and line-haul cycle
standards.
(1) When using credits generated by
locomotives covered by paragraph (b) of
this section for single cycle locomotives
covered by this paragraph (c), you must
use both switch and line-haul credits as
described in this paragraph (c)(1).
(i) For locomotives subject only to
switch cycle standards, calculate the
negative switch credits for the credit
using locomotive as specified in
§ 1033.705. Such locomotives also
generate an equal number of negative
line-haul cycle credits (in Mg).
(ii) For locomotives subject only to
line-haul cycle standards, calculate the
negative line-haul credits for the credit
using locomotive as specified in
§ 1033.705. Such locomotives also
generate an equal number of negative
switch cycle credits (in Mg).
(2) Credits generated by Tier 0, Tier 3,
or Tier 4 switch locomotives may be
used to show compliance with any
switch cycle or line-haul cycle
standards.
(3) Credits generated by any line-haul
locomotives may not be used by Tier 3
or later switch locomotives.
(d) Tier 4 credit use. The number of
Tier 4 locomotives that can be certified
using credits in any year may not
exceed 50 percent of the total number of
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16071
Tier 4 locomotives you produce in that
year for U.S. sales.
(e) Other restrictions. Other sections
of this part may specify additional
restrictions for using emission credits
under certain special provisions.
§ 1033.745 Compliance with the provisions
of this subpart.
The provisions of this section apply to
certificate holders.
(a) For each engine family
participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditional
upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and
after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our
satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void
the certificate of conformity for an
engine family if you fail to comply with
any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine
family to an FEL above an applicable
standard based on a projection that you
will have enough emission credits to
offset the deficit for the engine family.
However, we may void the certificate of
conformity if you cannot show in your
final report that you have enough actual
emission credits to offset a deficit for
any pollutant in an engine family.
(c) We may void the certificate of
conformity for an engine family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information we request.
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we
void your certificate under this section
(see § 1033.920).
§ 1033.750 Changing a locomotive’s FEL
at remanufacture.
Locomotives are generally required to
be certified to the previously applicable
standard or FEL when remanufactured.
This section describes provisions that
allow a remanufactured locomotive to
be certified to a different FEL (higher or
lower).
(a) A remanufacturer may choose to
certify a remanufacturing system to
change the FEL of a locomotive from a
previously applicable FEL or standard.
Any locomotives remanufactured using
that system are required to comply with
the revised FEL for the remainder of
their service lives, unless it is changed
again under this section during a later
remanufacture. Remanufacturers must
notify the owner of the locomotive that
it is required to comply with that FEL
for the remainder of its service life.
(b) Calculate the credits needed or
generated as specified in § 1033.705,
except as specified in this paragraph. If
the locomotive was previously certified
to an FEL for the pollutant, use the
previously applicable FEL as the
standard.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16072
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Subpart I—Requirements for Owners
and Operators
§ 1033.801
Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart are
applicable to railroads and all other
owners and operators of locomotives
subject to the provisions of this part,
except as otherwise specified. The
prohibitions related to maintenance in
§ 1033.815 also applies to anyone
performing maintenance on a
locomotive subject to the provisions of
this part.
§ 1033.805 Remanufacturing
requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(a) See the definition of
remanufacture in § 1033.901 to
determine if you are remanufacturing
your locomotive or engine. (Note:
Replacing power assemblies one at a
time may qualify as remanufacturing,
depending on the interval between
replacement.)
(b) See the definition of ‘‘new’’ in
§ 1033.901 to determine if
remanufacturing your locomotive makes
it subject to the requirements of this
part. If the locomotive is considered to
be new, it is subject to the certification
requirements of this part, unless it is
exempt under subpart G of this part.
The standards to which your locomotive
is subject will depend on factors such as
the following:
(1) Its date of original manufacture.
(2) The FEL to which it was
previously certified.
(3) Its power rating (whether it is
above or below 2300 hp).
(4) The calendar year in which it is
being remanufactured.
(c) You may comply with the
certification requirements of this part
for your remanufactured locomotive by
either obtaining your own certificate of
conformity as specified in subpart C of
this part or by having a certifying
remanufacturer include your locomotive
under its certificate of conformity. In
either case, your remanufactured
locomotive must be covered by a
certificate before it is reintroduced into
service.
(d) Contact a certifying
remanufacturer to have your locomotive
included under its certificate of
conformity. You must comply with the
certificate holder’s emission-related
installation instructions.
(e) Failure to comply with this section
is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
§ 1033.810
In-use testing program.
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to all Class I freight railroads. It does not
apply to other owner/operators.
(b) Testing requirements. Annually
test a sample of locomotives in your
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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:
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
emission data collected using other
testing or sampling procedures instead
of some or all of the data specified by
this section.
(g) Submit all reports to the
Designated Compliance Officer.
(h) Failure to comply fully with this
section is a violation of 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(2).
§ 1033.815
repair.
Maintenance, operation, and
(a) Unless we allow otherwise, all
owners of locomotives subject to the
provisions of this part must ensure that
all emission-related maintenance is
performed on the locomotives, as
specified in the maintenance
instructions provided by the certifying
manufacturer/remanufacturer in
compliance with § 1033.125 (or
maintenance that is equivalent to the
maintenance specified by the certifying
manufacturer/remanufacturer in terms
of maintaining emissions performance).
(b) Use good engineering judgment
when performing maintenance of
locomotives subject to the provisions of
this part. You must perform all
maintenance and repair such that you
have a reasonable technical basis for
believing the locomotive will continue
(after the maintenance or repair) to meet
the applicable emission standards and
FELs to which it was certified.
(c) The owner of the locomotive must
keep records of all maintenance and
repairs that could reasonably affect the
emission performance of any locomotive
subject to the provisions of this part.
Keep these records for eight years.
(d) In addition, for locomotives
equipped with emission controls
requiring the use of specific fuels,
lubricants, or other fluids, you must
comply with the manufacturer/
remanufacturer’s specifications for such
fluids when operating the locomotives.
For locomotives equipped with SCR
systems requiring the use of urea or
other reductants, you must report to us
within 30 days of any operation of such
locomotives without the appropriate
urea other reductants.
(e) Failure to fully comply with this
section is a violation of 40 CFR
1068.101(b).
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1033.820
In-use locomotives.
(a) We may require you to supply inuse locomotives to us for testing. We
will specify a reasonable time and place
at which you must supply the
locomotives and a reasonable period
during which we will keep them for
testing. We will make reasonable
allowances for you to schedule the
supply of locomotives to minimize
disruption of your operations. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
number of locomotives that you must
supply is limited as follows:
(1) We will not require a Class I
railroad to supply more than five
locomotives per railroad per calendar
year.
(2) We will not require a non-Class I
railroad (or other entity subject to the
provisions of this subpart) to supply
more than two locomotives per railroad
per calendar year. We will request
locomotives under this paragraph (a)(2)
only for purposes that cannot be
accomplished using locomotives
supplied under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(b) You must make reasonable efforts
to supply manufacturers and
remanufacturers of locomotives with the
test locomotives needed to fulfill the inuse testing requirements in subpart E of
this part.
(c) Failure to fully comply with this
section is a violation of 40 CFR
1068.101(a)(2).
§ 1033.825
Refueling requirements.
(a) If your locomotive operates using
a volatile fuel, your refueling equipment
must be designed and used to minimize
the escape of fuel vapors. This means
you may not use refueling equipment in
a way that renders any refueling
emission controls inoperative or reduces
their effectiveness.
(b) If your locomotive operates using
a gaseous fuel, the hoses used to refuel
it may not be designed to be bled or
vented to the atmosphere under normal
operating conditions.
(c) Failing to fully comply with the
requirements of this section is a
violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b).
Subpart J—Definitions and Other
Reference Information
§ 1033.901
Definitions.
The following definitions apply to
this part. The definitions apply to all
subparts unless we note otherwise. All
undefined terms have the meaning the
Clean Air Act gives to them. The
definitions follow:
Adjustable parameter means any
device, system, or element of design that
someone can adjust (including those
which are difficult to access) and that,
if adjusted, may affect emissions or
locomotive performance during
emission testing or normal in-use
operation. This includes, but is not
limited to, parameters related to
injection timing and fueling rate. You
may ask us to exclude a parameter if
you show us that it will not be adjusted
in a way that affects emissions during
in-use operation.
Aftertreatment means relating to a
catalytic converter, particulate filter, or
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16073
any other system, component, or
technology mounted downstream of the
exhaust valve (or exhaust port), whose
design function is to reduce emissions
in the locomotive exhaust before it is
exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) is not
aftertreatment.
Alcohol fuel means a fuel consisting
primarily (more than 50 percent by
weight) of one or more alcohols: e.g.,
methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol.
Alternator/generator efficiency means
the ratio of the electrical power output
from the alternator/generator to the
mechanical power input to the
alternator/generator at the operating
point. Note that the alternator/generator
efficiency may be different at different
operating points.
Applicable emission standard or
applicable standard means a standard to
which a locomotive is subject; or, where
a locomotive has been or is being
certified to another standard or FEL, the
FEL or other standard to which the
locomotive has been or is being certified
is the applicable standard. This
definition does not apply to Subpart H
of this part.
Auxiliary emission control device
means any element of design that senses
temperature, motive speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, or any other
parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating
the operation of any part of the
emission-control system.
Auxiliary engine means a nonroad
engine that provides hotel power or
power during idle, but does not provide
power to propel the locomotive.
Auxiliary power means the power
provided by the main propulsion engine
to operate accessories such as cooling
fans.
Averaging means the exchange of
emission credits among engine families
within a given manufacturer’s, or
remanufacturer’s product line.
Banking means the retention of
emission credits by a credit holder for
use in future calendar year averaging or
trading as permitted by the regulations
in this part.
Brake power means the sum of the
alternator/generator input power and
the mechanical accessory power,
excluding any power required to fuel,
lubricate, heat, or cool the engine or to
operate aftertreatment devices.
Calibration means the set of
specifications, including tolerances,
specific to a particular design, version,
or application of a component, or
components, or assembly capable of
functionally describing its operation
over its working range.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16074
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Certification means the process of
obtaining a certificate of conformity for
an engine family that complies with the
emission standards and requirements in
this part, or relating to that process.
Certified emission level means the
highest deteriorated emission level in an
engine family for a given pollutant from
a given test cycle.
Class I freight railroad means a Class
I railroad that primarily transports
freight rather than passengers.
Class I railroad means a railroad that
has been classified as a Class I railroad
by the Surface Transportation Board.
Class II railroad means a railroad that
has been classified as a Class II railroad
by the Surface Transportation Board.
Class III railroad means a railroad that
has been classified as a Class III railroad
by the Surface Transportation Board.
Clean Air Act means the Clean Air
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Configuration means a unique
combination of locomotive hardware
and calibration within an engine family.
Locomotives within a single
configuration differ only with respect to
normal production variability (or factors
unrelated to engine performance or
emissions).
Crankcase emissions means airborne
substances emitted to the atmosphere
from any part of the locomotive
crankcase’s ventilation or lubrication
systems. The crankcase is the housing
for the crankshaft and other related
internal parts.
Design certify or certify by design
means to certify a locomotive based on
inherent design characteristics rather
than your test data, such as allowed
under § 1033.625. All other
requirements of this part apply for such
locomotives.
Designated Compliance Officer means
the Manager, Heavy Duty and Nonroad
Engine Group (6403–), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer
means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the
emission level that results from
applying the appropriate deterioration
factor to the official emission result of
the emission-data locomotive.
Deterioration factor means the
relationship between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point, expressed in one of
the following ways:
(1) For multiplicative deterioration
factors, the ratio of emissions at the end
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
of useful life to emissions at the lowhour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors,
the difference between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point.
Discrete-mode means relating to the
discrete-mode type of steady-state test
described in § 1033.510.
Emission control system means any
device, system, or element of design that
controls or reduces the regulated
emissions from a locomotive.
Emission credits represent the amount
of emission reduction or exceedance, by
a locomotive engine family, below or
above the emission standard,
respectively. Emission reductions below
the standard are considered as ‘‘positive
credits,’’ while emission exceedances
above the standard are considered as
‘‘negative credits.’’ In addition,
‘‘projected credits’’ refer to emission
credits based on the projected
applicable production/sales volume of
the engine family. ‘‘Reserved credits’’
are emission credits generated within a
calendar year waiting to be reported to
EPA at the end of the calendar year.
‘‘Actual credits’’ refer to emission
credits based on actual applicable
production/sales volume as contained
in the end-of-year reports submitted to
EPA.
Emission-data locomotive means a
locomotive or engine that is tested for
certification. This includes locomotives
tested to establish deterioration factors.
Emission-related maintenance means
maintenance that substantially affects
emissions or is likely to substantially
affect emission deterioration.
Engine family has the meaning given
in § 1033.230.
Engine used in a locomotive means an
engine incorporated into a locomotive
or intended for incorporation into a
locomotive.
Engineering analysis means a
summary of scientific and/or
engineering principles and facts that
support a conclusion made by a
manufacturer/remanufacturer, with
respect to compliance with the
provisions of this part.
EPA Enforcement Officer means any
officer or employee of the
Environmental Protection Agency so
designated in writing by the
Administrator or his/her designee.
Exempted means relating to a
locomotive that is not required to meet
otherwise applicable standards.
Exempted locomotives must conform to
regulatory conditions specified for an
exemption in this part 1033 or in 40
CFR part 1068. Exempted locomotives
are deemed to be ‘‘subject to’’ the
standards of this part, even though they
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are not required to comply with the
otherwise applicable requirements.
Locomotives exempted with respect to a
certain tier of standards may be required
to comply with an earlier tier of
standards as a condition of the
exemption; for example, locomotives
exempted with respect to Tier 3
standards may be required to comply
with Tier 2 standards.
Excluded means relating to a
locomotive that either has been
determined not to be a locomotive (as
defined in this section) or otherwise
excluded under section § 1033.5.
Excluded locomotives are not subject to
the standards of this part
Exhaust emissions means substances
(i.e., gases and particles) emitted to the
atmosphere from any opening
downstream from the exhaust port or
exhaust valve of a locomotive engine.
Exhaust-gas recirculation means a
technology that reduces emissions by
routing exhaust gases that had been
exhausted from the combustion
chamber(s) back into the locomotive to
be mixed with incoming air before or
during combustion. The use of valve
timing to increase the amount of
residual exhaust gas in the combustion
chamber(s) that is mixed with incoming
air before or during combustion is not
considered exhaust-gas recirculation for
the purposes of this part.
Freshly manufactured locomotive
means a new locomotive that contains
fewer than 25 percent previously used
parts (weighted by the dollar value of
the parts) as described in § 1033.640.
Freshly manufactured engine means a
new engine that has not been
remanufactured. An engine becomes
freshly manufactured when it is
originally manufactured.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an
emission level declared by the
manufacturer/remanufacturer to serve in
place of an otherwise applicable
emission standard under the ABT
program in subpart H of this part. The
family emission limit must be expressed
to the same number of decimal places as
the emission standard it replaces. The
family emission limit serves as the
emission standard for the engine family
with respect to all required testing.
Fuel system means all components
involved in transporting, metering, and
mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the
combustion chamber(s), including the
fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel
filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuelinjection components, and all fuelsystem vents.
Fuel type means a general category of
fuels such as diesel fuel or natural gas.
There can be multiple grades within a
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
single fuel type, such as high-sulfur or
low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Gaseous fuel means a fuel which is a
gas at standard temperature and
pressure. This includes both natural gas
and liquefied petroleum gas.
Good engineering judgment means
judgments made consistent with
generally accepted scientific and
engineering principles and all available
relevant information. See 40 CFR 1068.5
for the administrative process we use to
evaluate good engineering judgment.
Green engine factor means a factor
that is applied to emission
measurements from a locomotive or
locomotive engine that has had little or
no service accumulation. The green
engine factor adjusts emission
measurements to be equivalent to
emission measurements from a
locomotive or locomotive engine that
has had approximately 300 hours of use.
High-altitude means relating to an
altitude greater than 4000 feet (1220
meters) and less than 7000 feet (2135
meters), or equivalent observed
barometric test conditions
(approximately 79 to 88 kPa).
High-sulfur diesel fuel means one of
the following:
(1) For in-use fuels, high-sulfur diesel
fuel means a diesel fuel with a
maximum sulfur concentration greater
than 500 parts per million.
(2) For testing, high-sulfur diesel fuel
has the meaning given in 40 CFR part
1065.
Hotel power means the power
provided by an engine on a locomotive
to operate equipment on passenger cars
of a train; e.g., heating and air
conditioning, lights, etc.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the
hydrocarbon group (THC, NMHC, or
THCE) on which the emission standards
are based for each fuel type as described
in § 1033.101.
Identification number means a unique
specification (for example, a model
number/serial number combination)
that allows someone to distinguish a
particular locomotive from other similar
locomotives.
Idle speed means the speed,
expressed as the number of revolutions
of the crankshaft per unit of time (e.g.,
rpm), at which the engine is set to
operate when not under load for
purposes of propelling the locomotive.
There are typically one or two idle
speeds on a locomotive as follows:
(1) Normal idle speed means the idle
speed for the idle throttle-notch position
for locomotives that have one throttlenotch position, or the highest idle speed
for locomotives that have two idle
throttle-notch positions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(2) Low idle speed means the lowest
idle speed for locomotives that have two
idle throttle-notch positions.
Inspect and qualify means to
determine that a previously used
component or system meets all
applicable criteria listed for the
component or system in a certificate of
conformity for remanufacturing (such as
to determine that the component or
system is functionally equivalent to one
that has not been used previously).
Installer means an individual or entity
that assembles remanufactured
locomotives or locomotive engines.
Liquefied petroleum gas means the
commercial product marketed as
propane or liquefied petroleum gas.
Locomotive means a self-propelled
piece of on-track equipment designed
for moving or propelling cars that are
designed to carry freight, passengers or
other equipment, but which itself is not
designed or intended to carry freight,
passengers (other than those operating
the locomotive) or other equipment. The
following other equipment are not
locomotives (see 40 CFR parts 86, 89,
and 1039 for this diesel-powered
equipment):
(1) Equipment which is designed for
operation both on highways and rails is
not a locomotive.
(2) Specialized railroad equipment for
maintenance, construction, postaccident recovery of equipment, and
repairs; and other similar equipment,
are not locomotives.
(3) Vehicles propelled by engines
with total rated power of less than 750
kW (1006 hp) are not locomotives,
unless the owner (which may be a
manufacturer) chooses to have the
equipment certified to meet the
requirements of this part (under
§ 1033.615). Where equipment is
certified as a locomotive pursuant to
this paragraph (3), it is subject to the
requirements of this part for the
remainder of its service life. For
locomotives propelled by two or more
engines, the total rated power is the sum
of the rated power of each engine.
Low-hour means relating to a
locomotive with stabilized emissions
and represents the undeteriorated
emission level. This would generally
involve less than 300 hours of
operation.
Low mileage locomotive means a
locomotive during the interval between
the time that normal assembly
operations and adjustments are
completed and the time that either
10,000 miles of locomotive operation or
300 additional operating hours have
been accumulated (including emission
testing if performed).
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16075
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16076
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
after the effective date of the emission
standards in this part which is
applicable to such locomotive or engine
(or which would be applicable to such
locomotive or engine had it been
manufactured or remanufactured for
importation into the United States).
Note that replacing an engine in one
locomotive with an unremanufactured
used engine from a different locomotive
does not make a locomotive new.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of
this definition do not apply for the
following cases:
(i) Locomotives and engines that were
originally manufactured before January
1, 1973 are not considered to become
new when remanufactured unless they
have been upgraded (as defined in this
section). The provisions of paragraph (1)
of this definition apply for locomotives
that have been upgraded.
(ii) Locomotives that are owned and
operated by a small railroad and that
have never been remanufactured into a
certified configuration are not
considered to become new when
remanufactured. The provisions of
paragraph (1) of this definition apply for
locomotives that have been
remanufactured into a certified
configuration.
Nonconforming means relating to a
locomotive that is not covered by a
certificate of conformity prior to
importation or being offered for
importation (or for which such coverage
has not been adequately demonstrated
to EPA); or a locomotive which was
originally covered by a certificate of
conformity, but which is not in a
certified configuration, or otherwise
does not comply with the conditions of
that certificate of conformity. (Note:
Domestic locomotives and locomotive
engines not covered by a certificate of
conformity prior to their introduction
into U.S. commerce are considered to be
noncomplying locomotives and
locomotive engines.)
Non-locomotive-specific engine
means an engine that is sold for and
used in non-locomotive applications
much more than for locomotive
applications.
Nonmethane hydrocarbon has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
This generally means the difference
between the emitted mass of total
hydrocarbons and the emitted mass of
methane.
Nonroad means relating to a nonroad
engines as defined in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Official emission result means the
measured emission rate for an emissiondata locomotive on a given duty cycle
before the application of any
deterioration factor, but after the
application of regeneration adjustment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
factors, green engine factors, and/or
humidity correction factors.
Opacity means the fraction of a beam
of light, expressed in percent, which
fails to penetrate a plume of smoke, as
measured by the procedure specified in
§ 1033.515.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning
given in 40 CFR part 1065.
Original manufacture means the event
of freshly manufacturing a locomotive
or locomotive engine. The date of
original manufacture is the date of final
assembly, except as provided in
§ 1033.655. Where a locomotive is
manufactured under § 1033.620(b), the
date of original manufacture is the date
on which the final assembly of
locomotive was originally scheduled.
See also § 1033.640
Original remanufacture means the
first remanufacturing of a locomotive at
which the locomotive is subject to the
emission standards of this part.
Owner/operator means the owner
and/or operator of a locomotive.
Owners manual means a written or
electronic collection of instructions
provided to ultimate purchasers to
describe the basic operation of the
locomotive.
Particulate trap means a filtering
device that is designed to physically
trap all particulate matter above a
certain size.
Passenger locomotive means a
locomotive designed and constructed
for the primary purpose of propelling
passenger trains, and providing power
to the passenger cars of the train for
such functions as heating, lighting and
air conditioning.
Petroleum fuel means gasoline or
diesel fuel or another liquid fuel
primarily derived from crude oil.
Placed into service means put into
initial use for its intended purpose after
becoming new.
Power assembly means the
components of an engine in which
combustion of fuel occurs, and consists
of the cylinder, piston and piston rings,
valves and ports for admission of charge
air and discharge of exhaust gases, fuel
injection components and controls,
cylinder head and associated
components.
Primary fuel means the type of fuel
(e.g., diesel fuel) that is consumed in the
greatest quantity (mass basis) when the
locomotive is operated in use.
Produce means to manufacture or
remanufacture. Where a certificate
holder does not actually assemble the
locomotives or locomotive engines that
it manufactures or remanufactures,
produce means to allow other entities to
assemble locomotives under the
certificate holder’s certificate.
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Railroad means a commercial entity
that operates locomotives to transport
passengers or freight.
Ramped-modal means relating to the
ramped-modal type of testing in subpart
F of this part.
Rated power has the meaning given in
§ 1033.140.
Refurbish has the meaning given in
§ 1033.640.
Remanufacture means one of the
following:
(1)(i) To replace, or inspect and
qualify, each and every power assembly
of a locomotive or locomotive engine,
whether during a single maintenance
event or cumulatively within a five year
period.
(ii) To upgrade a locomotive or
locomotive engine.
(iii) To convert a locomotive or
locomotive engine to enable it to operate
using a fuel other than it was originally
manufactured to use.
(iv) To install a remanufactured
engine or a freshly manufactured engine
into a previously used locomotive.
(v) To repair a locomotive engine that
does not contain power assemblies to a
condition that is equivalent to or better
than its original condition with respect
to reliability and fuel consumption.
(2) Remanufacture also means the act
of remanufacturing.
Remanufacture system or
remanufacturing system means all
components (or specifications for
components) and instructions necessary
to remanufacture a locomotive or
locomotive engine in accordance with
applicable requirements of this part or
40 CFR part 92.
Remanufactured locomotive means
either a locomotive powered by a
remanufactured locomotive engine, or a
repowered locomotive.
Remanufactured locomotive engine
means a locomotive engine that has
been remanufactured.
Remanufacturer has the meaning
given to ‘‘manufacturer’’ in section
216(1) of the Clean Air Act with respect
to remanufactured locomotives. (See
§§ 1033.1 and 1033.601 for applicability
of this term.) This term includes:
(1) Any person that is engaged in the
manufacture or assembly of
remanufactured locomotives or
locomotive engines, such as persons
who:
(i) Design or produce the emissionrelated parts used in remanufacturing.
(ii) Install parts in an existing
locomotive or locomotive engine to
remanufacture it.
(iii) Own or operate the locomotive or
locomotive engine and provide
specifications as to how an engine is to
be remanufactured (i.e., specifying who
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
will perform the work, when the work
is to be performed, what parts are to be
used, or how to calibrate the adjustable
parameters of the engine).
(2) Any person who imports
remanufactured locomotives or
remanufactured locomotive engines.
Repower means replacement of the
engine in a previously used locomotive
with a freshly manufactured locomotive
engine. See § 1033.640.
Repowered locomotive means a
locomotive that has been repowered
with a freshly manufactured engine.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30. In general this means to
terminate the certificate or an
exemption for an engine family.
Round means to round numbers as
specified in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Service life means the total life of a
locomotive. Service life begins when the
locomotive is originally manufactured
and continues until the locomotive is
permanently removed from service.
Small railroad means a railroad
meeting the criterion of paragraph (1) or
(2) of this definition, but not the
criterion of paragraph (3) of this
definition. For the purpose of this part,
the number of employees includes all
employees of the railroad’s parent
company, if applicable.
(1) Line-haul railroads with 1,500 or
fewer employees are small railroads.
(2) Local and terminal railroads with
500 or fewer employees are small
railroads.
(3) Intercity passenger and commuter
railroads are excluded from this
definition of small railroad.
Small manufacturer means a
manufacturer/remanufacturer with
1,000 or fewer employees. For purposes
of this part, the number of employees
includes all employees of the
manufacturer/remanufacturer’s parent
company, if applicable.
Specified adjustable range means the
range of allowable settings for an
adjustable component specified by a
certificate of conformity.
Specified by a certificate of
conformity or specified in a certificate of
conformity means stated or otherwise
specified in a certificate of conformity
or an approved application for
certification.
Sulfur-sensitive technology means an
emission-control technology that
experiences a significant drop in
emission control performance or
emission-system durability when a
locomotive is operated on low-sulfur
fuel (i.e., fuel with a sulfur
concentration of 300 to 500 ppm) as
compared to when it is operated on
ultra low-sulfur fuel (i.e., fuel with a
sulfur concentration less than 15 ppm).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Exhaust-gas recirculation is not a sulfursensitive technology.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30. In general this means to
temporarily discontinue the certificate
or an exemption for an engine family.
Switch locomotive means a
locomotive that is powered by an engine
with a maximum rated power (or a
combination of engines having a total
rated power) of 2300 hp or less.
Test locomotive means a locomotive
or engine in a test sample.
Test sample means the collection of
locomotives or engines selected from
the population of an engine family for
emission testing. This may include
testing for certification, production-line
testing, or in-use testing.
Tier 1 means relating to the Tier 1
emission standards, as shown in
§ 1033.101.
Tier 2 means relating to the Tier 2
emission standards, as shown in
§ 1033.101.
Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3
emission standards, as shown in
§ 1033.101.
Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4
emission standards, as shown in
§ 1033.101.
Total hydrocarbon has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This
generally means the combined mass of
organic compounds measured by the
specified procedure for measuring total
hydrocarbon, expressed as a
hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon
mass ratio of 1.85:1.
Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
This generally means the sum of the
carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and
aldehydes, or other organic compounds
that are measured separately as
contained in a gas sample, expressed as
exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled locomotives. The hydrogen-tocarbon ratio of the equivalent
hydrocarbon is 1.85:1.
Ultimate purchaser means the first
person who in good faith purchases a
new locomotive for purposes other than
resale.
Ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel means one
of the following:
(1) For in-use fuels, ultra low-sulfur
diesel fuel means a diesel fuel with a
maximum sulfur concentration of 15
parts per million.
(2) For testing, ultra low-sulfur diesel
fuel has the meaning given in 40 CFR
part 1065.
Upcoming model year means for an
engine family the model year after the
one currently in production.
Upgrade means to modify a
locomotive that was originally
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16077
manufactured prior to January 1, 1973
(or a locomotive that was originally
manufactured on or after January 1,
1973, and that is not subject to the
emission standards of this part), such
that it is intended to comply with the
Tier 0 standards. Upgrading is a type of
remanufacturing. See § 1033.615.
U.S.-directed production volume
means the number of locomotives,
subject to the requirements of this part,
produced by a manufacturer/
remanufacturer for which the
manufacturer/remanufacturer has a
reasonable assurance that sale was or
will be made to ultimate purchasers in
the United States.
Useful life means the period during
which the locomotive engine is
designed to properly function in terms
of reliability and fuel consumption,
without being remanufactured, specified
as work output or miles. It is the period
during which a new locomotive is
required to comply with all applicable
emission standards. See § 1033.101(g).
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30. In general this means to
invalidate a certificate or an exemption
both retroactively and prospectively.
Volatile fuel means a volatile liquid
fuel or any fuel that is a gas at
atmospheric pressure. Gasoline, natural
gas, and LPG are volatile fuels.
Volatile liquid fuel means any liquid
fuel other than diesel or biodiesel that
is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and
has a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than
2.0 pounds per square inch.
We (us, our) means the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
and any authorized representatives.
§ 1033.905 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
The following symbols, acronyms,
and abbreviations apply to this part:
AECD
CFR
CO
CO2
EPA
FEL
g/bhp-hr
HC
hp
LPG
LSD
MW
NIST
NMHC
NOX
PM
rpm
SAE
SCR
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
auxiliary emission control device.
Code of Federal Regulations.
carbon monoxide.
carbon dioxide.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Family Emission Limit.
grams per brake horsepowerhour.
hydrocarbon.
horsepower.
liquefied petroleum gas.
low sulfur diesel.
megawatt.
National Institute of Standards
and Technology.
nonmethane hydrocarbons.
oxides of nitrogen.
particulate matter.
revolutions per minute.
Society of Automotive Engineers.
selective catalytic reduction.
16078
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
SEA
THC
THCE
ULSD
U.S.C.
Selective Enforcement Audit.
total hydrocarbon.
total hydrocarbon equivalent.
ultra low sulfur diesel.
United States Code.
§ 1033.915
Confidential information.
(a) Clearly show what you consider
confidential by marking, circling,
bracketing, stamping, or some other
method.
(b) We will store your confidential
information as described in 40 CFR part
2. Also, we will disclose it only as
specified in 40 CFR part 2. This applies
both to any information you send us and
to any information we collect from
inspections, audits, or other site visits.
(c) If you send us a second copy
without the confidential information,
we will assume it contains nothing
confidential whenever we need to
release information from it.
(d) If you send us information without
claiming it is confidential, we may make
it available to the public without further
notice to you, as described in 40 CFR
2.204.
§ 1033.920
How to request a hearing.
(a) You may request a hearing under
certain circumstances, as described
elsewhere in this part. To do this, you
must file a written request, including a
description of your objection and any
supporting data, within 30 days after we
make a decision.
(b) For a hearing you request under
the provisions of this part, we will
approve your request if we find that
your request raises a substantial factual
issue.
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we
will use the procedures specified in 40
CFR part 1068, subpart G.
13. A new part 1042 is added to
subchapter U of chapter I to read as
follows:
PART 1042—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
FROM NEW AND IN-USE MARINE
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES
AND VESSELS
Sec.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 G—Special Compliance Provisions
1042.601 General compliance provisions for
marine engines and vessels.
1042.605 Dressing engines already certified
to other standards for nonroad or heavyduty highway engines for marine use.
1042.610 Certifying auxiliary marine
engines to land-based standards.
1042.620 Engines used solely for
competition.
1042.630 Personal-use exemption.
1042.640 Special provisions for branded
engines.
1042.660 Requirements for vessel
manufacturers, owners, and operators.
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
1042.701 General provisions.
1042.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
1042.710 Averaging emission credits.
1042.715 Banking emission credits.
1042.720 Trading emission credits.
1042.725 Information required for the
application for certification.
1042.730 ABT reports.
1042.735 Recordkeeping.
1042.745 Noncompliance.
Subpart D—Testing Production-line
Engines
1042.301 General provisions.
1042.305 Preparing and testing productionline engines.
1042.310 Engine selection.
1042.315 Determining compliance.
1042.320 What happens if one of my
production-line engines fails to meet
emission standards?
1042.325 What happens if an engine family
fails the production-line testing
requirements?
1042.330 Selling engines from an engine
family with a suspended certificate of
conformity.
1042.335 Reinstating suspended
certificates.
1042.340 When may EPA revoke my
certificate under this subpart and how
may I sell these engines again?
1042.345 Reporting.
1042.350 Recordkeeping.
Subpart I—Definitions and Other Reference
Information
Subpart E—In-use Testing
1042.401 General Provisions.
§ 1042.1
Subpart F—Test Procedures
1042.501 How do I run a valid emission
test?
1042.505 Testing engines using discretemode or ramped-modal duty cycles.
1042.515 Test procedures related to not-toexceed standards.
1042.520 What testing must I perform to
establish deterioration factors?
1042.525 How do I adjust emission levels to
account for infrequently regenerating
aftertreatment devices?
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
Applicability.
Except as provided in § 1042.5, the
regulations in this part 1042 apply for
all new compression-ignition marine
engines with per-cylinder displacement
below 30.0 liters per cylinder and
vessels containing such engines. See
§ 1042.801 for the definitions of engines
and vessels considered to be new. This
part 1042 applies as follows:
(a) This part 1042 applies starting
with the model years noted in the
following tables:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16079
TABLE 1 OF § 1042.1.—PART 1042 APPLICABILITY BY MODEL YEAR
Engine category
Maximum engine power
Displacement
(L/cyl)
Category 1a ............................................................................
kW <75 ..................................
75 ≤ kW < 3700 .....................
................................................
All ....................................................
disp.<0.9 ..........................................
0.9 ≤ disp. <1.2
1.2 ≤ disp. <2.5 ...............................
2.5 ≤ disp. <3.5 ...............................
3.5 ≤ disp. <7.0 ...............................
7.0 ≤ disp. <15.0 .............................
.........................................................
15 ≤ disp. < 30 ................................
Category 2 .............................................................................
kW ≤ 3700 .............................
kW > 3700 .............................
All ...........................................
Model year
2009
2012
2013
2014
2013
2012
2013
2014
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 §§ 1042.620 and
1042.801 apply for new engines used
solely for competition beginning
January 1, 2009.
§ 1042.2 Who is responsible for
compliance?
The regulations in this part 1042
contain provisions that affect both
engine manufacturers and others.
However, the requirements of this part
are generally addressed to the engine
manufacturer. The term ‘‘you’’ generally
means the engine manufacturer, as
defined in § 1042.801, especially for
issues related to certification (including
production-line testing, reporting, etc.).
§ 1042.5
Exclusions.
This part does not apply to the
following marine engines:
(a) Foreign vessels. The requirements
and prohibitions of this part do not
apply to engines installed on foreign
vessels, as defined in § 1042.801.
(b) Hobby engines. Engines with percylinder displacement below 50 cubic
centimeters are not subject to the
provisions of this part 1042.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.10
Organization of this part.
This part 1042 is divided into the
following subparts:
(a) Subpart A of this part defines the
applicability of this part 1042 and gives
an overview of regulatory requirements.
(b) Subpart B of this part describes the
emission standards and other
requirements that must be met to certify
engines under this part. Note that
§ 1042.145 discusses certain interim
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
requirements and compliance
provisions that apply only for a limited
time.
(c) Subpart C of this part describes
how to apply for a certificate of
conformity.
(d) Subpart D of this part describes
general provisions for testing
production-line engines.
(e) Subpart E of this part describes
general provisions for testing in-use
engines.
(f) Subpart F of this part and 40 CFR
1065 describe how to test your engines.
(g) Subpart G of this part and 40 CFR
part 1068 describe requirements,
prohibitions, and other provisions that
apply to engine manufacturers, vessel
manufacturers, owners, operators,
rebuilders, and all others.
(h) Subpart H of this part describes
how you may generate and use emission
credits to certify your engines.
(i) Subpart I of this part contains
definitions and other reference
information.
§ 1042.15 Do any other regulation parts
apply to me?
(a) The evaporative emission
requirements of part 1060 of this
chapter apply to vessels that include
installed engines fueled with a volatile
liquid fuel as specified in § 1042.107.
(Note: Conventional diesel fuel is not
considered to be a volatile liquid fuel.)
(b) Part 1065 of this chapter describes
procedures and equipment
specifications for testing engines.
Subpart F of this part 1042 describes
how to apply the provisions of part 1065
of this chapter to determine whether
engines meet the emission standards in
this part.
(c) The requirements and prohibitions
of part 1068 of this chapter apply to
everyone, including anyone who
manufactures, imports, installs, owns,
operates, or rebuilds any of the engines
subject to this part 1042, or vessels
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
containing these engines. Part 1068 of
this chapter describes general
provisions, including these seven areas:
(1) Prohibited acts and penalties for
engine manufacturers, vessel
manufacturers, and others.
(2) Rebuilding and other aftermarket
changes.
(3) Exclusions and exemptions for
certain engines.
(4) Importing engines.
(5) Selective enforcement audits of
your production.
(6) Defect reporting and recall.
(7) Procedures for hearings.
(d) Other parts of this chapter apply
if referenced in this part.
Subpart B—Emission Standards and
Related Requirements
§ 1042.101
Exhaust emission standards.
(a) Exhaust emissions from your
engines may not exceed emission
standards, as follows:
(1) Measure emissions using the test
procedures described in subpart F of
this part.
(2) The CO emission standards in this
paragraph (a)(2) apply starting with the
applicable model year shown for Tier 3
standards in Table 1 of this section.
These standards continue to apply for
Tier 4 engines. The following CO
emission standards apply:
(i) 8.0 g/kW-hr for engines below 8
kW.
(ii) 6.6 g/kW-hr for engines at or above
8 kW and below 19 kW.
(iii) 5.5 g/kW-hr for engines at or
above 19 kW and below 37 kW.
(iv) 5.0 g/kW-hr for engines at or
above 37 kW.
(3) Except as described in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section, the Tier 3
standards for PM and NOX+HC
emissions are described in Tables 1 and
2 of this section, which follow.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16080
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF 1042.101.—TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 1 ENGINES
Power density and application
Displacement
(L/cyl)
all ...................................................
disp. < 0.9 .....................................
disp. < 0.9 .....................................
0.9 ≤ disp. < 1.2 ...........................
1.2 ≤ disp. < 2.5 ...........................
kW ≥ 75 ........................................
all ..................................................
kW < 600 ......................................
2.5 ≤ disp. < 3.5 ...........................
600 ≤ kW < 3700 ..........................
kW < 600 ......................................
3.5 ≤ disp. ≤ 7.0 ...........................
600 ≤ kW ≤ 3700 ..........................
kW < 600 ......................................
disp. < 0.9 .....................................
600 ≤ kW ≤ 3700 ..........................
kW ≡ 75 ........................................
Commercial engines with kW/L 35
Commercial engines with kW/L >
35 and all recreational engines.
0.9
1.2
2.5
3.5
≤
≤
≤
≤
disp.
disp.
disp.
disp.
(4) For Tier 3 engines with
displacement below 0.9 L/cyl and
maximum engine power above 19 kW
<
<
<
<
1.2
2.5
3.5
7.0
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
kW
kW
kW
kW
≡
≡
≡
≡
75
75
75
75
NOX+HC
(g/kW-hr)
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.14
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.15
7.5
7.5
4.7
5.4
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
2013
2014
2013
2012
kW < 19 ........................................
19 ≤ kW < 75 ................................
PM
(g/kW-hr)
2009
2009
2014
2012
2013
2014
2018
2014
2013
2018
2013
2012
2018
2012
2012
Maximum engine power
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.12
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.4
Model
year
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
and at or below 75 kW, you may certify
to a PM emission standard of 0.20 g/kWhr and a NOX+HC emission standard of
5.8 g/kW-hr for 2014 and later model
years.
TABLE 2 OF 1042.101.—TIER 3 STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 2 ENGINES a
Displacement
(L/cyl)
Maximum engine power
7.0 ≤ disp. < 15.0
15.0 ≤ disp. < 20.0
kW ≤ 3700
kW ≤ 3300
3300 < kW
kW ≤ 3700
kW ≤ 3700
20.0 ≤ disp. < 25.0
25.0 < disp. < 30.0
a No
Model year
............................................................
............................................................
≤ 3700 ...............................................
............................................................
............................................................
PM
(g/kW-hr)
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
0.14
0.34
0.27
0.27
0.27
NOX+HC
(g/kW-hr)
6.2
7.0
8.7
9.8
11.0
Tier 3 standards apply for engines above 3700 kW. See § 1042.1(c) for the standards that apply for these engines.
(5) Except as described in paragraph
(a)(6) of this section, the Tier 4
standards for PM, NOX, and HC
emissions are described in the following
table:
TABLE 3 OF 1042.101.—TIER 4 STANDARDS FOR CATEGORY 1 AND CATEGORY 2 ENGINES a
Application
Maximum engine power
Displacement
(L/cyl)
Commercial only ..........
Commercial only ..........
Commercial and recreational.
600 ≤ kW < 1400 ................
1400 ≤ kW ≤ 2000 ..............
2000 < kW ≤ 3700 ..............
all .........................................
all .........................................
all .........................................
2017
2016
2016
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.19
0.19
0.19
Commercial and recreational.
kW > 3700 ...........................
disp. < 15.0 .........................
15.0 ≤ disp. ≤ 30.0 ..............
2014
2014
0.12
0.25
1.8
1.8
0.19
0.19
all .........................................
2016
0.06
1.8
0.19
Model year
PM
(g/kW-hr)
NOX
(g/kW-hr)
HC
(g/kW-hr)
a No
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Tier 4 standards apply for recreational engines at or below 2000 kWor for commercial engines below 600 kW. The Tier 3 standards continue to apply for these engines.
(6) The following optional provisions
apply for complying with the Tier 4
standards specified in paragraph (a)(5)
of this section:
(i) You may certify Tier 4 engines to
a NOX+HC emission standard of 1.8 g/
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
kW-hr instead of the NOX and HC
standards that would otherwise apply.
(ii) For engines below 1000 kW, you
may delay complying with the Tier 4
standards in the 2017 model year for up
to nine months, but you must comply
no later than October 1, 2017.
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
maximum engine power at or below
3700 kW, you may alternatively comply
with the Tier 4 PM and HC standards in
the 2015 model year and delay
complying with the Tier 4 NOX standard
until the 2017 model year. In the 2015
and 2016 model years, these engines
must also comply with the Tier 3
NOX+HC standard.
(b) Averaging, banking, and trading.
You may generate or use emission
credits under the averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) program as described
in subpart H of this part for
demonstrating compliance with NOX,
NOX+HC, and PM emission standards
for Category 1 and Category 2 engines.
You may also use NOX or NOX+HC
emission credits to comply with the
alternate NOX+HC standards in
paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section.
Generating or using emission credits
requires that you specify a family
emission limit (FEL) for each pollutant
you include in the ABT program for
each engine family. These FELs serve as
the emission standards for the engine
family with respect to all required
testing instead of the standards
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. The FELs determine the not-toexceed standards for your engine family,
as specified in paragraph (c) of this
section. The following FEL caps apply:
(1) FELs for Tier 3 engines may not be
higher than the Tier 2 standards
specified in Appendix I of this part.
(2) FELs for Tier 4 engines may not be
higher than the Tier 3 standards
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(c) Not-to-exceed standards. Exhaust
emissions from your propulsion or
auxiliary engines may not exceed the
not-to-exceed (NTE) standards, as
described in this paragraph (c).
(1) Use the following equation to
determine the NTE standards:
(i) NTE standard for each pollutant =
STD × M
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the broadest applicable NTE zone
applies for that family at the time of
certification. Whenever an engine
family is certified to multiple duty
cycles and a specific engine from that
family is tested for NTE compliance inuse, determine the applicable NTE zone
for that engine according to that
engine’s in-use application. An engine
family’s NTE zone may be modified as
follows:
(i) You may ask us to approve a
narrower NTE zone for an engine family
at the time of certification, based on
information such as how that engine
family is expected to normally operate
in use. For example, if an engine family
is always coupled to a pump or jet
drive, the engine might be able to
operate only within a narrow range of
engine speed and power.
(ii) You may ask us to approve a
Limited Testing Region (LTR). An LTR
is a region of engine operation, within
the applicable NTE zone, where you
have demonstrated that your engine
family operates for no more than 5.0
percent of its normal in-use operation,
on a time-weighted basis. You must
specify an LTR using boundaries based
on engine speed and power (or torque),
where the LTR boundaries must
coincide with some portion of the
boundary defining the overall NTE
zone. Any emission data collected
within an LTR for a time duration that
exceeds 5.0 percent of the duration of its
respective NTE sampling period (as
defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section) will be excluded when
determining compliance with the
applicable NTE standards. Any
emission data collected within an LTR
for a time duration of 5.0 percent or less
of the duration of the respective NTE
sampling period will be included when
determining compliance with the NTE
standards.
(iii) You must notify us if you design
your engines for normal in-use
operation outside the applicable NTE
zone. If we learn that normal in-use
operation for your engines includes
other speeds and loads, we may specify
a broader NTE zone, as long as the
modified zone is limited to normal inuse operation for speeds greater than 70
percent of maximum test speed and
loads greater than 30 percent of
maximum power at maximum test
speed (or 30 percent of maximum test
torque, as appropriate).
(iv) You may exclude emission data
based on ambient or engine parameter
limit values as follows:
(A) NOX catalytic aftertreatment
minimum temperature. For an engine
equipped with a catalytic NOX
aftertreatment system, exclude NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16081
emission data that is collected when the
exhaust temperature is less than 150 °C,
as measured within 30 cm downstream
of the last NOX aftertreatment device
that has the greatest exhaust flow. You
may request that we approve a higher
minimum exhaust temperature limit at
the time of certification based on the
normal in-use operation of the NOX
exhaust aftertreatment system for the
engine family. We will generally not
approve a minimum exhaust
temperature for catalytic NOX
aftertreatment greater than 250 °C.
(B) Hydrocarbon catalytic
aftertreatment minimum temperature.
For an engine equipped with a catalytic
hydrocarbon aftertreatment system,
exclude hydrocarbon emission data that
is collected when the exhaust
temperature is less than 250 °C, as
measured within 30 cm downstream of
the last hydrocarbon aftertreatment
device that has the greatest exhaust
flow.
(C) Other parameters. You may
request our approval for other minimum
or maximum ambient or engine
parameter limit values at the time of
certification.
(3) The NTE standards apply to your
engines whenever they operate within
the NTE zone for an NTE sampling
period of at least thirty seconds, during
which only a single operator demand set
point may be selected. Engine operation
during a change in operator demand is
excluded from any NTE sampling
period. There is no maximum NTE
sampling period.
(4) Collect emission data for
determining compliance with the NTE
standards using the procedures
described in subpart F of this part.
(d) Fuel types. The exhaust emission
standards in this section apply for
engines using the fuel type on which the
engines in the engine family are
designed to operate.
(1) You must meet the numerical
emission standards for hydrocarbons in
this section based on the following
types of hydrocarbon emissions for
engines powered by the following fuels:
(i) Alcohol-fueled engines must
comply with Tier 3 HC standards based
on THCE emissions and with Tier 4
standards based on NMHCE emissions.
(ii) Natural gas-fueled engines must
comply with HC standards based on
NMHC emissions.
(iii) Diesel-fueled and other engines
must comply with Tier 3 HC standards
based on THC emissions and with Tier
4 standards based on NMHC emissions.
(2) Tier 3 and later engines must
comply with the exhaust emission
standards when tested using test fuels
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16082
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
containing 15 ppm or less sulfur (ultra
low-sulfur diesel fuel).
(3) Engines designed to operate using
residual fuel must comply with the
standards and requirements of this part
when operated using residual fuel in
addition to complying with the
requirements of this part when operated
using diesel fuel.
(e) Useful life. Your engines must
meet the exhaust emission standards of
this section over their full useful life.
(1) The minimum useful life values
are as follows, except as specified by
paragraph (e)(2) or (3) of this section:
(i) 10 years or 1,000 hours of
operation for recreational Category 1
engines.
(ii) 10 years or 10,000 hours of
operation for commercial Category 1
engines.
(iii) 10 years or 20,000 hours of
operation for Category 2 engines.
(iv) [Reserved]
(2) Specify a longer useful life in
hours for an engine family under either
of two conditions:
(i) If you design, advertise, or market
your engine to operate longer than the
minimum useful life (your
recommended hours until rebuild
indicates a longer design life).
(ii) If your basic mechanical warranty
is longer than the minimum useful life.
(3) You may request in your
application for certification that we
approve a shorter useful life for an
engine family. We may approve a
shorter useful life, in hours of engine
operation but not in years, if we
determine that these engines will rarely
operate longer than the shorter useful
life. If engines identical to those in the
engine family have already been
produced and are in use, your
demonstration must include
documentation from such in-use
engines. In other cases, your
demonstration must include an
engineering analysis of information
equivalent to such in-use data, such as
data from research engines or similar
engine models that are already in
production. Your demonstration must
also include any overhaul interval that
you recommend, any mechanical
warranty that you offer for the engine or
its components, and any relevant
customer design specifications. Your
demonstration may include any other
relevant information. The useful life
value may not be shorter than any of the
following:
(i) 1,000 hours of operation.
(ii) Your recommended overhaul
interval.
(iii) Your mechanical warranty for the
engine.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(f) Applicability for testing. The dutycycle emission standards in this subpart
apply to all testing performed according
to the procedures in § 1042.505,
including certification, production-line,
and in-use testing. The not-to-exceed
standards apply for all testing
performed according to the procedures
of subpart F of this part.
§ 1042.107 Evaporative emission
standards.
(a) There are no evaporative emission
standards for diesel-fueled engines, or
engines using other nonvolatile or
nonliquid fuels (for example, natural
gas).
(b) If an engine uses a volatile liquid
fuel, such as methanol, the engine’s fuel
system and the vessel in which the
engine is installed must meet the
evaporative emission requirements of 40
CFR part 1045 that apply with respect
to spark-ignition engines. Manufacturers
subject to evaporative emission
standards must meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 1045.105 as described in 40
CFR part 1060 and do all the following
things in the application for
certification:
(1) Describe how evaporative
emissions are controlled.
(2) Present test data to show that fuel
systems and vessels meet the
evaporative emission standards we
specify in this section if you do not use
design-based certification under 40 CFR
1060.240. Show these figures before and
after applying deterioration factors,
where applicable.
§ 1042.110 Recording urea use and other
diagnostic functions.
(a) Engines equipped with SCR
systems must meet the following
requirements:
(1) The diagnostic system must
monitor urea quality and tank levels and
alert operators to the need to refill the
urea tank using a malfunction-indicator
light (MIL) and an audible alarm. You
do not need to separately monitor urea
quality if you include an exhaust NOX
sensor that allows you determine
inadequate urea quality along with other
SCR malfunctions.
(2) The onboard computer log must
record in nonvolatile computer memory
all incidents of engine operation with
inadequate urea injection or urea
quality.
(b) You may equip your engine with
other diagnostic features. If you do, they
must be designed to allow us to read
and interpret the codes. Note that
§§ 1042.115 and 1042.205 require that
you provide us any information needed
to read, record, and interpret all the
information broadcast by an engine’s
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
onboard computers and electronic
control units.
§ 1042.115
Other requirements.
Engines that are required to comply
with the emission standards of this part
must meet the following requirements:
(a) Crankcase emissions. Crankcase
emissions may not be discharged
directly into the ambient atmosphere
from any engine throughout its useful
life, except as follows:
(1) Engines may discharge crankcase
emissions to the ambient atmosphere if
the emissions are added to the exhaust
emissions (either physically or
mathematically) during all emission
testing. If you take advantage of this
exception, you must do the following
things:
(i) Manufacture the engines so that all
crankcase emissions can be routed into
the applicable sampling systems
specified in 40 CFR part 1065.
(ii) Account for deterioration in
crankcase emissions when determining
exhaust deterioration factors.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph (a),
crankcase emissions that are routed to
the exhaust upstream of exhaust
aftertreatment during all operation are
not considered to be discharged directly
into the ambient atmosphere.
(b) Torque broadcasting.
Electronically controlled engines must
broadcast their speed and output shaft
torque (in newton-meters). Engines may
alternatively broadcast a surrogate value
for determining torque. Engines must
broadcast engine parameters such that
they can be read with a remote device,
or broadcast them directly to their
controller area networks. This
information is necessary for testing
engines in the field (see § 1042.515).
(c) EPA access to broadcast
information. If we request it, you must
provide us any hardware or tools we
would need to readily read, interpret,
and record all information broadcast by
an engine’s on-board computers and
electronic control modules. If you
broadcast a surrogate parameter for
torque values, you must provide us
what we need to convert these into
torque units. We will not ask for
hardware or tools if they are readily
available commercially.
(d) Adjustable parameters. An
operating parameter is not considered
adjustable if you permanently seal it or
if it is not normally accessible using
ordinary tools. The following provisions
apply for adjustable parameters:
(1) Category 1 engines that have
adjustable parameters must meet all the
requirements of this part for any
adjustment in the physically adjustable
range. We may require that you set
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
adjustable parameters to any
specification within the adjustable range
during any testing, including
certification testing, selective
enforcement auditing, or in-use testing.
(2) Category 2 engines that have
adjustable parameters must meet all the
requirements of this part for any
adjustment in the approved adjustable
range. You must specify in your
application for certification the
adjustable range of each adjustable
parameter on a new engine to—
(i) Ensure that safe engine operating
characteristics are available within that
range, as required by section 202(a)(4) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(4)),
taking into consideration the production
tolerances.
(ii) Limit the physical range of
adjustability to the maximum extent
practicable to the range that is necessary
for proper operation of the engine.
(e) Prohibited controls. You may not
design your engines with emissioncontrol devices, systems, or elements of
design that cause or contribute to an
unreasonable risk to public health,
welfare, or safety while operating. For
example, this would apply if the engine
emits a noxious or toxic substance it
would otherwise not emit that
contributes to such an unreasonable
risk.
(f) Defeat devices. You may not equip
your engines with a defeat device. A
defeat device is an auxiliary emission
control device that reduces the
effectiveness of emission controls under
conditions that the engine may
reasonably be expected to encounter
during normal operation and use. This
does not apply to auxiliary emission
control devices you identify in your
certification application if any of the
following is true:
(1) The conditions of concern were
substantially included in the applicable
duty-cycle test procedures described in
subpart F of this part (the portion during
which emissions are measured). See
paragraph (f)(4) of this section for other
conditions.
(2) You show your design is necessary
to prevent engine (or vessel) damage or
accidents.
(3) The reduced effectiveness applies
only to starting the engine.
(4) The auxiliary emission control
device reduces urea flow for a selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) aftertreatment
system and meets the requirements of
this paragraph (f)(4). For any operation
meeting one of the conditions of
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section, your
SCR system must function so that at
least one of the conditions of paragraph
(ii) of this paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
section is met at the applicable speed
and loads.
(i) The provisions of this paragraph
(f)(4) apply under either of the following
conditions:
(A) The ambient test conditions are
outside the range specified in
§ 1042.501.
(B) The operation is at a speed and/
or load not included as a duty-cycle test
point, including transient operation
between test points.
(ii) Consistent with good engineering
judgment, your AECD is not a defeat
device where one of the following is
true:
(A) You maintain the mass flow of
urea into the catalyst at the highest level
possible without emitting ammonia at
levels higher than would occur at
operation at test points under test
conditions.
(B) The temperature of the exhaust is
too low to allow urea to be converted to
ammonia.
§ 1042.120 Emission-related warranty
requirements.
(a) General requirements. You must
warrant to the ultimate purchaser and
each subsequent purchaser that the new
engine, including all parts of its
emission-control system, meets two
conditions:
(1) It is designed, built, and equipped
so it conforms at the time of sale to the
ultimate purchaser with the
requirements of this part.
(2) It is free from defects in materials
and workmanship that may keep it from
meeting these requirements.
(b) Warranty period. Your emissionrelated warranty must be valid for at
least as long as the minimum warranty
periods listed in this paragraph (b) in
hours of operation and years, whichever
comes first. You may offer an emissionrelated warranty more generous than we
require. The emission-related warranty
for the engine may not be shorter than
any published warranty you offer
without charge for the engine. Similarly,
the emission-related warranty for any
component may not be shorter than any
published warranty you offer without
charge for that component. If an engine
has no hour meter, we base the warranty
periods in this paragraph (b) only on the
engine’s age (in years). The warranty
period begins when the engine is placed
into service. The following minimum
warranty periods apply:
(1) For Category 1 and Category 2
engines, your emission-related warranty
must be valid for at least 50 percent of
the engine’s useful life in hours of
operation or a number of years equal to
at least 50 percent of the useful life in
years, whichever comes first.
PO 00000
Frm 00147
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16083
(2) [Reserved]
(c) Components covered. The
emission-related warranty covers all
components whose failure would
increase an engine’s emissions of any
pollutant, including those listed in 40
CFR part 1068, Appendix I, and those
from any other system you develop to
control emissions. The emission-related
warranty covers these components even
if another company produces the
component. Your emission-related
warranty does not cover components
whose failure would not increase an
engine’s emissions of any pollutant.
(d) Limited applicability. You may
deny warranty claims under this section
if the operator caused the problem
through improper maintenance or use,
as described in 40 CFR 1068.115.
(e) Owner’s manual. Describe in the
owner’s manual the emission-related
warranty provisions from this section
that apply to the engine.
§ 1042.125 Maintenance instructions for
Category 1 and Category 2 engines.
Give the ultimate purchaser of each
new engine written instructions for
properly maintaining and using the
engine, including the emission-control
system, as described in this section. The
maintenance instructions also apply to
service accumulation on your emissiondata engines as described in § 1042.245
and in 40 CFR part 1065. This section
applies only to Category 1 and Category
2 engines.
(a) Critical emission-related
maintenance. Critical emission-related
maintenance includes any adjustment,
cleaning, repair, or replacement of
critical emission-related components.
This may also include additional
emission-related maintenance that you
determine is critical if we approve it in
advance. You may schedule critical
emission-related maintenance on these
components if you meet the following
conditions:
(1) You demonstrate that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be
done at the recommended intervals on
in-use engines. We will accept
scheduled maintenance as reasonably
likely to occur if you satisfy any of the
following conditions:
(i) You present data showing that any
lack of maintenance that increases
emissions also unacceptably degrades
the engine’s performance.
(ii) You present survey data showing
that at least 80 percent of engines in the
field get the maintenance you specify at
the recommended intervals.
(iii) You provide the maintenance free
of charge and clearly say so in
maintenance instructions for the
customer.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16084
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(iv) You otherwise show us that the
maintenance is reasonably likely to be
done at the recommended intervals.
(2) For engines below 130 kW, you
may not schedule critical emissionrelated maintenance more frequently
than the following minimum intervals,
except as specified in paragraphs (a)(4),
(b), and (c) of this section:
(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers,
PCV valves, and fuel injector tips
(cleaning only), the minimum interval is
1,500 hours.
(ii) For the following components,
including associated sensors and
actuators, the minimum interval is 3,000
hours: fuel injectors, turbochargers,
catalytic converters, electronic control
units, particulate traps, trap oxidizers,
components related to particulate traps
and trap oxidizers, EGR systems
(including related components, but
excluding filters and coolers), and other
add-on components. For particulate
traps, trap oxidizers, and components
related to either of these, maintenance is
limited to cleaning and repair only.
(3) For Category 1 and Category 2
engines at or above 130 kW, you may
not schedule critical emission-related
maintenance more frequently than the
following minimum intervals, except as
specified in paragraphs (a)(4), (b), and
(c) of this section:
(i) For EGR-related filters and coolers,
PCV valves, and fuel injector tips
(cleaning only), the minimum interval is
1,500 hours.
(ii) For the following components,
including associated sensors and
actuators, the minimum interval is 4,500
hours: fuel injectors, turbochargers,
catalytic converters, electronic control
units, particulate traps, trap oxidizers,
components related to particulate traps
and trap oxidizers, EGR systems
(including related components, but
excluding filters and coolers), and other
add-on components. For particulate
traps, trap oxidizers, and components
related to either of these, maintenance is
limited to cleaning and repair only.
(4) We may approve shorter
maintenance intervals than those listed
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section where
technologically necessary for Category 2
engines.
(5) If your engine family has an
alternate useful life under § 1042.101(e)
that is shorter than the period specified
in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
section, you may not schedule critical
emission-related maintenance more
frequently than the alternate useful life,
except as specified in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(b) Recommended additional
maintenance. You may recommend any
additional amount of maintenance on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the components listed in paragraph (a)
of this section, as long as you state
clearly that these maintenance steps are
not necessary to keep the emissionrelated warranty valid. If operators do
the maintenance specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, but not the
recommended additional maintenance,
this does not allow you to disqualify
those engines from in-use testing or
deny a warranty claim. Do not take
these maintenance steps during service
accumulation on your emission-data
engines.
(c) Special maintenance. You may
specify more frequent maintenance to
address problems related to special
situations, such as atypical engine
operation. You must clearly state that
this additional maintenance is
associated with the special situation you
are addressing.
(d) Noncritical emission-related
maintenance. Subject to the provisions
of this paragraph (d), you may schedule
any amount of emission-related
inspection or maintenance that is not
covered by paragraph (a) of this section
(that is, maintenance that is neither
explicitly identified as critical emissionrelated maintenance, nor that we
approve as critical emission-related
maintenance). Noncritical emissionrelated maintenance generally includes
maintenance on the components we
specify in 40 CFR part 1068, Appendix
I. You must state in the owner’s manual
that these steps are not necessary to
keep the emission-related warranty
valid. If operators fail to do this
maintenance, this does not allow you to
disqualify those engines from in-use
testing or deny a warranty claim. Do not
take these inspection or maintenance
steps during service accumulation on
your emission-data engines.
(e) Maintenance that is not emissionrelated. For maintenance unrelated to
emission controls, you may schedule
any amount of inspection or
maintenance. You may also take these
inspection or maintenance steps during
service accumulation on your emissiondata engines, as long as they are
reasonable and technologically
necessary. This might include adding
engine oil, changing air, fuel, or oil
filters, servicing engine-cooling systems,
and adjusting idle speed, governor,
engine bolt torque, valve lash, or
injector lash. You may perform this
nonemission-related maintenance on
emission-data engines at the least
frequent intervals that you recommend
to the ultimate purchaser (but not
intervals recommended for severe
service).
(f) Source of parts and repairs. State
clearly on the first page of your written
PO 00000
Frm 00148
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
maintenance instructions that a repair
shop or person of the owner’s choosing
may maintain, replace, or repair
emission-control devices and systems.
Your instructions may not require
components or service identified by
brand, trade, or corporate name. Also,
do not directly or indirectly condition
your warranty on a requirement that the
engine be serviced by your franchised
dealers or any other service
establishments with which you have a
commercial relationship. You may
disregard the requirements in this
paragraph (f) if you do one of two
things:
(1) Provide a component or service
without charge under the purchase
agreement.
(2) Get us to waive this prohibition in
the public’s interest by convincing us
the engine will work properly only with
the identified component or service.
(g) Payment for scheduled
maintenance. Owners are responsible
for properly maintaining their engines.
This generally includes paying for
scheduled maintenance. However,
manufacturers must pay for scheduled
maintenance during the useful life if it
meets all the following criteria:
(1) Each affected component was not
in general use on similar engines before
the applicable dates shown in paragraph
(6) of the definition of new marine
engine in § 1042.801.
(2) The primary function of each
affected component is to reduce
emissions.
(3) The cost of the scheduled
maintenance is more than 2 percent of
the price of the engine.
(4) Failure to perform the
maintenance would not cause clear
problems that would significantly
degrade the engine’s performance.
(h) Owner’s manual. Explain the
owner’s responsibility for proper
maintenance in the owner’s manual.
§ 1042.130 Installation instructions for
vessel manufacturers.
(a) If you sell an engine for someone
else to install in a vessel, give the engine
installer instructions for installing it
consistent with the requirements of this
part. Include all information necessary
to ensure that an engine will be
installed in its certified configuration.
(b) Make sure these instructions have
the following information:
(1) Include the heading: ‘‘Emissionrelated installation instructions’.
(2) State: ‘‘Failing to follow these
instructions when installing a certified
engine in a vessel violates federal law
(40 CFR 1068.105(b)), subject to fines or
other penalties as described in the Clean
Air Act.’’.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) Describe the instructions needed
to properly install the exhaust system
and any other components. Include
instructions consistent with the
requirements of § 1042.205(u).
(4) Describe any necessary steps for
installing the diagnostic system
described in § 1042.110.
(5) Describe any limits on the range of
applications needed to ensure that the
engine operates consistently with your
application for certification. For
example, if your engines are certified
only for constant-speed operation, tell
vessel manufacturers not to install the
engines in variable-speed applications
or modify the governor.
(6) Describe any other instructions to
make sure the installed engine will
operate according to design
specifications in your application for
certification. This may include, for
example, instructions for installing
aftertreatment devices when installing
the engines.
(7) State: ‘‘If you install the engine in
a way that makes the engine’s emission
control information label hard to read
during normal engine maintenance, you
must place a duplicate label on the
vessel, as described in 40 CFR
1068.105.’’.
(8) Describe any vessel labeling
requirements specified in § 1042.135.
(c) You do not need installation
instructions for engines you install in
your own vessels.
(d) Provide instructions in writing or
in an equivalent format. For example,
you may post instructions on a publicly
available Web site for downloading or
printing. If you do not provide the
instructions in writing, explain in your
application for certification how you
will ensure that each installer is
informed of the installation
requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.135
Labeling.
(a) Assign each engine a unique
identification number and permanently
affix, engrave, or stamp it on the engine
in a legible way.
(b) At the time of manufacture, affix
a permanent and legible label
identifying each engine. The label must
be—
(1) Attached in one piece so it is not
removable without being destroyed or
defaced. However, you may use twopiece labels for engines below 19 kW if
there is not enough space on the engine
to apply a one-piece label.
(2) Secured to a part of the engine
needed for normal operation and not
normally requiring replacement.
(3) Durable and readable for the
engine’s entire life.
(4) Written in English.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(c) The label must—
(1) Include the heading ‘‘EMISSION
CONTROL INFORMATION’’.
(2) Include your full corporate name
and trademark. You may identify
another company and use its trademark
instead of yours if you comply with the
provisions of § 1042.640.
(3) Include EPA’s standardized
designation for the engine family (and
subfamily, where applicable).
(4) State the engine’s category,
displacement (in liters or L/cyl),
maximum engine power (in kW), and
power density (in kW/L) as needed to
determine the emission standards for
the engine family. You may specify
displacement, maximum engine power,
and power density as ranges consistent
with the ranges listed in § 1042.101. See
§ 1042.140 for descriptions of how to
specify per-cylinder displacement,
maximum engine power, and power
density.
(5) [Reserved]
(6) State the date of manufacture
[MONTH and YEAR]; however, you may
omit this from the label if you stamp or
engrave it on the engine.
(7) State the FELs to which the
engines are certified if you certified the
engine using the ABT provisions of
subpart H of this part.
(8) Identify the emission-control
system. Use terms and abbreviations
consistent with SAE J1930 (incorporated
by reference in § 1042.810). You may
omit this information from the label if
there is not enough room for it and you
put it in the owner’s manual instead.
(9) Identify the application(s) for
which the engine family is certified
(such as constant-speed auxiliary,
variable-speed propulsion engines used
with fixed-pitch propellers, etc.). If the
engine is certified as a recreational
engine, state: ‘‘INSTALLING THIS
RECREATIONAL ENGINE IN A
NONRECREATIONAL VESSEL
VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW SUBJECT
TO CIVIL PENALTY (40 CFR PART
1068).’’.
(10) For engines requiring ULSD,
state: ‘‘ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL
FUEL ONLY’.
(11) Identify any additional
requirements for fuel and lubricants that
do not involve fuel-sulfur levels. You
may omit this information from the
label if there is not enough room for it
and you put it in the owner’s manual
instead.
(12) State the useful life for your
engine family.
(13) State: ‘‘THIS ENGINE COMPLIES
WITH U.S. EPA REGULATIONS FOR
[MODEL YEAR] MARINE DIESEL
ENGINES.’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00149
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16085
(14) For an engine that can be
modified to operate on residual fuel, but
has not been certified to meet the
standards on such a fuel, include the
statement: ‘‘THIS ENGINE IS
CERTIFIED FOR OPERATION ONLY
WITH DIESEL FUEL. MODIFYING THE
ENGINE TO OPERATE ON RESIDUAL
OR INTERMEDIATE FUEL MAY BE A
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW
SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES.’’.
(d) You may add information to the
emission control information label to
identify other emission standards that
the engine meets or does not meet (such
as international standards). You may
also add other information to ensure
that the engine will be properly
maintained and used.
(e) For engines requiring ULSD, create
a separate label with the statement:
‘‘ULTRA LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL
ONLY’’. Permanently attach this label to
the vessel near the fuel inlet or, if you
do not manufacture the vessel, take one
of the following steps to ensure that the
vessel will be properly labeled:
(1) Provide the label to each vessel
manufacturer and include in the
emission-related installation
instructions the requirement to place
this label near the fuel inlet.
(2) Confirm that the vessel
manufacturers install their own
complying labels.
(f) You may ask us to approve
modified labeling requirements in this
part 1042 if you show that it is
necessary or appropriate. We will
approve your request if your alternate
label is consistent with the intent of the
labeling requirements of this part.
(g) If you obscure the engine label
while installing the engine in the vessel
such that the label will be hard to read
during normal maintenance, you must
place a duplicate label on the vessel. If
others install your engine in their
vessels in a way that obscures the
engine label, we require them to add a
duplicate label on the vessel (see 40
CFR 1068.105); in that case, give them
the number of duplicate labels they
request and keep the following records
for at least five years:
(1) Written documentation of the
request from the vessel manufacturer.
(2) The number of duplicate labels
you send for each family and the date
you sent them.
§ 1042.140 Maximum engine power,
displacement, and power density.
This section describes how to
determine the maximum engine power,
displacement, and power density of an
engine for the purposes of this part.
Note that maximum engine power may
differ from the definition of maximum
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16086
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
test power as defined in subpart F for
testing engines.
(a) An engine configuration’s
maximum engine power is the
maximum brake power point on the
nominal power curve for the engine
configuration, as defined in this section.
Round the power value to the nearest
whole kilowatt.
(b) The nominal power curve of an
engine configuration is the relationship
between maximum available engine
brake power and engine speed for an
engine, using the mapping procedures
of 40 CFR part 1065, based on the
manufacturer’s design and production
specifications for the engine. This
information may also be expressed by a
torque curve that relates maximum
available engine torque with engine
speed.
(c) An engine configuration’s percylinder displacement is the intended
swept volume of each cylinder. The
swept volume of the engine is the
product of the internal cross-section
area of the cylinders, the stroke length,
and the number of cylinders. Calculate
the engine’s intended swept volume
from the design specifications for the
cylinders using enough significant
figures to allow determination of the
displacement to the nearest 0.02 liters.
Determine the final value by truncating
digits to establish the per-cylinder
displacement to the nearest 0.1 liters.
For example, for an engine with circular
cylinders having an internal diameter of
13.0 cm and a 15.5 cm stroke length, the
rounded displacement would be:
(13.0/2) 2×(p)×(15.5)÷ 1000 =2.0 liters.
(d) The nominal power curve and
intended swept volume must be within
the range of the actual power curves and
swept volumes of production engines
considering normal production
variability. If after production begins, it
is determined that either your nominal
power curve or your intended swept
volume does not represent production
engines, we may require you to amend
your application for certification under
§ 1042.225.
(e) Throughout this part, references to
a specific power value for an engine are
based on maximum engine power. For
example, the group of engines with
maximum engine power above 600 kW
may be referred to as engines above 600
kW.
(f) Calculate an engine family’s power
density in kW/L by dividing the
unrounded maximum engine power by
the engine’s unrounded per-cylinder
displacement, then dividing by the
number of cylinders. Round the
calculated value to the nearest whole
number.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 1042.145
Interim provisions.
§ 1042.205
(a) General. The provisions in this
section apply instead of other
provisions in this part for Category 1
and Category 2 engines. This section
describes when these interim provisions
expire.
(b) Delayed standards. Postmanufacturer marinizers that are smallvolume engine manufacturers may delay
compliance with the Tier 3 standards
for engines below 600 kW as follows:
(1) You may delay compliance with
the Tier 3 standards for one model year,
as long as the engines meet all the
requirements that apply to Tier 2
engines.
(2) You may delay compliance with
the NTE standards for Tier 3 standards
for three model years beyond the one
year delay otherwise allowed, as long as
the engines meet all other requirements
that apply to Tier 3 engines for the
appropriate model year.
Subpart C—Certifying Engine Families
§ 1042.201 General requirements for
obtaining a certificate of conformity.
(a) You must send us a separate
application for a certificate of
conformity for each engine family. A
certificate of conformity is valid starting
with the indicated effective date, but it
is not valid for any production after
December 31 of the model year for
which it is issued.
(b) The application must contain all
the information required by this part
and must not include false or
incomplete statements or information
(see § 1042.255).
(c) We may ask you to include less
information than we specify in this
subpart, as long as you maintain all the
information required by § 1042.250.
(d) You must use good engineering
judgment for all decisions related to
your application (see 40 CFR 1068.5).
(e) An authorized representative of
your company must approve and sign
the application.
(f) See § 1042.255 for provisions
describing how we will process your
application.
(g) We may require you to deliver
your test engines to a facility we
designate for our testing (see
§ 1042.235(c)).
(h) For engines that become new as a
result of substantial modifications or for
engines installed on imported vessels
that become subject to the requirements
of this part, we may specify alternate
certification provisions consistent with
the intent of this part. See the definition
of ‘‘new’’ in § 1042.801.
PO 00000
Frm 00150
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Application requirements.
This section specifies the information
that must be in your application, unless
we ask you to include less information
under § 1042.201(c). We may require
you to provide additional information to
evaluate your application.
(a) Describe the engine family’s
specifications and other basic
parameters of the engine’s design and
emission controls. List the fuel type on
which your engines are designed to
operate (for example, ultra low-sulfur
diesel fuel). List each distinguishable
engine configuration in the engine
family. For each engine configuration,
list the maximum engine power and the
range of values for maximum engine
power resulting from production
tolerances, as described in § 1042.140.
(b) Explain how the emission-control
system operates. Describe in detail all
system components for controlling
exhaust emissions, including all
auxiliary emission control devices
(AECDs) and all fuel-system
components you will install on any
production or test engine. Identify the
part number of each component you
describe. For this paragraph (b), treat as
separate AECDs any devices that
modulate or activate differently from
each other. Include all the following:
(1) Give a general overview of the
engine, the emission-control strategies,
and all AECDs.
(2) Describe each AECD’s general
purpose and function.
(3) Identify the parameters that each
AECD senses (including measuring,
estimating, calculating, or empirically
deriving the values). Include vesselbased parameters and state whether you
simulate them during testing with the
applicable procedures.
(4) Describe the purpose for sensing
each parameter.
(5) Identify the location of each sensor
the AECD uses.
(6) Identify the threshold values for
the sensed parameters that activate the
AECD.
(7) Describe the parameters that the
AECD modulates (controls) in response
to any sensed parameters, including the
range of modulation for each parameter,
the relationship between the sensed
parameters and the controlled
parameters and how the modulation
achieves the AECD’s stated purpose.
Use graphs and tables, as necessary.
(8) Describe each AECD’s specific
calibration details. This may be in the
form of data tables, graphical
representations, or some other
description.
(9) Describe the hierarchy among the
AECDs when multiple AECDs sense or
modulate the same parameter. Describe
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
whether the strategies interact in a
comparative or additive manner and
identify which AECD takes precedence
in responding, if applicable.
(10) Explain the extent to which the
AECD is included in the applicable test
procedures specified in subpart F of this
part.
(11) Do the following additional
things for AECDs designed to protect
engines or vessels:
(i) Identify the engine and/or vessel
design limits that make protection
necessary and describe any damage that
would occur without the AECD.
(ii) Describe how each sensed
parameter relates to the protected
components’ design limits or those
operating conditions that cause the need
for protection.
(iii) Describe the relationship between
the design limits/parameters being
protected and the parameters sensed or
calculated as surrogates for those design
limits/parameters, if applicable.
(iv) Describe how the modulation by
the AECD prevents engines and/or
vessels from exceeding design limits.
(v) Explain why it is necessary to
estimate any parameters instead of
measuring them directly and describe
how the AECD calculates the estimated
value, if applicable.
(vi) Describe how you calibrate the
AECD modulation to activate only
during conditions related to the stated
need to protect components and only as
needed to sufficiently protect those
components in a way that minimizes the
emission impact.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Describe the engines you selected
for testing and the reasons for selecting
them.
(e) Describe the test equipment and
procedures that you used, including the
duty cycle(s) and the corresponding
engine applications. Also describe any
special or alternate test procedures you
used.
(f) Describe how you operated the
emission-data engine before testing,
including the duty cycle and the
number of engine operating hours used
to stabilize emission levels. Explain
why you selected the method of service
accumulation. Describe any scheduled
maintenance you did.
(g) List the specifications of the test
fuel to show that it falls within the
required ranges we specify in 40 CFR
part 1065.
(h) Identify the engine family’s useful
life.
(i) Include the maintenance and
warranty instructions you will give to
the ultimate purchaser of each new
engine (see §§ 1042.120 and 1042.125).
(j) Include the emission-related
installation instructions you will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
provide if someone else installs your
engines in a vessel (see § 1042.130).
(k) Describe your emission control
information label (see § 1042.135).
(l) Identify the emission standards
and/or FELs to which you are certifying
engines in the engine family.
(m) Identify the engine family’s
deterioration factors and describe how
you developed them (see § 1042.245).
Present any emission test data you used
for this.
(n) State that you operated your
emission-data engines as described in
the application (including the test
procedures, test parameters, and test
fuels) to show you meet the
requirements of this part.
(o) Present emission data for HC,
NOX, PM, and CO on an emission-data
engine to show your engines meet
emission standards as specified in
§ 1042.101. Show emission figures
before and after applying adjustment
factors for regeneration and
deterioration factors for each pollutant
and for each engine. If we specify more
than one grade of any fuel type (for
example, high-sulfur and low-sulfur
diesel fuel), you need to submit test data
only for one grade, unless the
regulations of this part specify
otherwise for your engine. Include
emission results for each mode if you do
discrete-mode testing under § 1042.505.
Note that §§ 1042.235 and 1042.245
allows you to submit an application in
certain cases without new emission
data.
(p) For Category 1 and Category 2
engines, state that all the engines in the
engine family comply with the not-toexceed emission standards we specify in
§ 1042.101 for all normal operation and
use when tested as specified in
§ 1042.515. Describe any relevant
testing, engineering analysis, or other
information in sufficient detail to
support your statement.
(q) [Reserved]
(r) Report all test results, including
those from invalid tests, whether or not
they were conducted according to the
test procedures of subpart F of this part.
If you measure CO2, report those
emission levels. We may ask you to
send other information to confirm that
your tests were valid under the
requirements of this part and 40 CFR
part 1065.
(s) Describe all adjustable operating
parameters (see § 1042.115(d)),
including production tolerances.
Include the following in your
description of each parameter:
(1) The nominal or recommended
setting.
(2) The intended physically adjustable
range.
PO 00000
Frm 00151
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16087
(3) The limits or stops used to
establish adjustable ranges.
(4) For Category 1 engines,
information showing why the limits,
stops, or other means of inhibiting
adjustment are effective in preventing
adjustment of parameters on in-use
engines to settings outside your
intended physically adjustable ranges.
(5) For Category 2 engines, propose a
range of adjustment for each adjustable
parameter, as described in
§ 1042.115(d). Include information
showing why the limits, stops, or other
means of inhibiting adjustment are
effective in preventing adjustment of
parameters on in-use engines to settings
outside your proposed adjustable
ranges.
(t) Provide the information to read,
record, and interpret all the information
broadcast by an engine’s onboard
computers and electronic control units.
State that, upon request, you will give
us any hardware, software, or tools we
would need to do this. If you broadcast
a surrogate parameter for torque values,
you must provide us what we need to
convert these into torque units. You
may reference any appropriate publicly
released standards that define
conventions for these messages and
parameters. Format your information
consistent with publicly released
standards.
(u) Confirm that your emission-related
installation instructions specify how to
ensure that sampling of exhaust
emissions will be possible after engines
are installed in vessels and placed in
service. Show how to sample exhaust
emissions in a way that prevents
diluting the exhaust sample with
ambient air.
(v) State whether your certification is
limited for certain engines. If this is the
case, describe how you will prevent use
of these engines in applications for
which they are not certified. This
applies for engines such as the
following:
(1) Constant-speed engines.
(2) Variable-pitch.
(3) Recreational engines.
(w) Unconditionally certify that all
the engines in the engine family comply
with the requirements of this part, other
referenced parts of the CFR, and the
Clean Air Act.
(x) Include estimates of U.S.-directed
production volumes. If these estimates
are not consistent with your actual
production volumes from previous
years, explain why they are different.
(y) Include the information required
by other subparts of this part. For
example, include the information
required by § 1042.725 if you participate
in the ABT program.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16088
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(z) Include other applicable
information, such as information
specified in this part or 40 CFR part
1068 related to requests for exemptions.
(aa) Name an agent for service located
in the United States. Service on this
agent constitutes service on you or any
of your officers or employees for any
action by EPA or otherwise by the
United States related to the
requirements of this part.
(bb) For imported engines, identify
the following:
(1) The port(s) at which you will
import your engines.
(2) The names and addresses of the
agents you have authorized to import
your engines.
(3) The location of test facilities in the
United States where you can test your
engines if we select them for testing
under a selective enforcement audit, as
specified in 40 CFR part 1068, subpart
E.
§ 1042.210
Preliminary approval.
If you send us information before you
finish the application, we will review it
and make any appropriate
determinations, especially for questions
related to engine family definitions,
auxiliary emission control devices,
deterioration factors, useful life, testing
for service accumulation, maintenance,
and compliance with not-to-exceed
standards. Decisions made under this
section are considered to be preliminary
approval, subject to final review and
approval. We will generally not reverse
a decision where we have given you
preliminary approval, unless we find
new information supporting a different
decision. If you request preliminary
approval related to the upcoming model
year or the model year after that, we will
make best-efforts to make the
appropriate determinations as soon as
practicable. We will generally not
provide preliminary approval related to
a future model year more than two years
ahead of time.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.220 Amending maintenance
instructions.
You may amend your emissionrelated maintenance instructions after
you submit your application for
certification, as long as the amended
instructions remain consistent with the
provisions of § 1042.125. You must send
the Designated Compliance Officer a
written request to amend your
application for certification for an
engine family if you want to change the
emission-related maintenance
instructions in a way that could affect
emissions. In your request, describe the
proposed changes to the maintenance
instructions. We will disapprove your
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
request if we determine that the
amended instructions are inconsistent
with maintenance you performed on
emission-data engines. If operators
follow the original maintenance
instructions rather than the newly
specified maintenance, this does not
allow you to disqualify those engines
from in-use testing or deny a warranty
claim.
(a) If you are decreasing any specified
maintenance, you may distribute the
new maintenance instructions to your
customers 30 days after we receive your
request, unless we disapprove your
request. We may approve a shorter time
or waive this requirement.
(b) If your requested change would
not decrease the specified maintenance,
you may distribute the new
maintenance instructions any time after
you send your request. For example,
this paragraph (b) would cover adding
instructions to increase the frequency of
a maintenance step for engines in
severe-duty applications.
(c) You do not need to request
approval if you are making only minor
corrections (such as correcting
typographical mistakes), clarifying your
maintenance instructions, or changing
instructions for maintenance unrelated
to emission control.
§ 1042.225 Amending applications for
certification.
Before we issue you a certificate of
conformity, you may amend your
application to include new or modified
engine configurations, subject to the
provisions of this section. After we have
issued your certificate of conformity,
you may send us an amended
application requesting that we include
new or modified engine configurations
within the scope of the certificate,
subject to the provisions of this section.
You must amend your application if any
changes occur with respect to any
information included in your
application.
(a) You must amend your application
before you take any of the following
actions:
(1) Add an engine configuration to an
engine family. In this case, the engine
configuration added must be consistent
with other engine configurations in the
engine family with respect to the criteria
listed in § 1042.230.
(2) Change an engine configuration
already included in an engine family in
a way that may affect emissions, or
change any of the components you
described in your application for
certification. This includes production
and design changes that may affect
emissions any time during the engine’s
lifetime.
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) Modify an FEL for an engine
family as described in paragraph (f) of
this section.
(b) To amend your application for
certification as specified in paragraph
(a) of this section, send the Designated
Compliance Officer the following
information:
(1) Describe in detail the addition or
change in the engine model or
configuration you intend to make.
(2) Include engineering evaluations or
data showing that the amended engine
family complies with all applicable
requirements. You may do this by
showing that the original emission-data
engine is still appropriate with respect
to showing compliance of the amended
family with all applicable requirements.
(3) If the original emission-data
engine for the engine family is not
appropriate to show compliance for the
new or modified engine configuration,
include new test data showing that the
new or modified engine configuration
meets the requirements of this part.
(c) We may ask for more test data or
engineering evaluations. You must give
us these within 30 days after we request
them.
(d) For engine families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
we will determine whether the existing
certificate of conformity covers your
newly added or modified engine. You
may ask for a hearing if we deny your
request (see § 1042.820).
(e) For engine families already
covered by a certificate of conformity,
you may start producing the new or
modified engine configuration any time
after you send us your amended
application and before we make a
decision under paragraph (d) of this
section. However, if we determine that
the affected engines do not meet
applicable requirements, we will notify
you to cease production of the engines
and may require you to recall the
engines at no expense to the owner.
Choosing to produce engines under this
paragraph (e) is deemed to be consent to
recall all engines that we determine do
not meet applicable emission standards
or other requirements and to remedy the
nonconformity at no expense to the
owner. If you do not provide
information required under paragraph
(c) of this section within 30 days, you
must stop producing the new or
modified engines.
(f) You may ask us to approve a
change to your FEL in certain cases after
the start of production. The changed
FEL may not apply to engines you have
already introduced into U.S. commerce,
except as described in this paragraph (f).
If we approve a changed FEL after the
start of production, you must include
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(9) Method of control for engine
operation other than governing (i.e.,
mechanical or electronic).
(10) Application (commercial or
recreational).
(11) Numerical level of the emission
standards that apply to the engine,
except as allowed under paragraphs (f)
and (g) of this section.
(c) For Category 2 engines, group
engines in the same engine family if
they are the same in all the following
aspects:
(1) The combustion cycle (e.g., diesel
cycle).
(2) The type of engine cooling
employed (air-cooled or water-cooled),
and procedure(s) employed to maintain
engine temperature within desired
limits (thermostat, on-off radiator fan(s),
radiator shutters, etc.).
(3) The bore and stroke dimensions.
(4) The approximate intake and
exhaust event timing and duration
(valve or port).
(5) The location of the intake and
exhaust valves (or ports).
(6) The size of the intake and exhaust
valves (or ports).
(7) The overall injection, or as
appropriate ignition, timing
characteristics (i.e., the deviation of the
timing curves from the optimal fuel
economy timing curve must be similar
in degree).
(8) The combustion chamber
configuration and the surface-to-volume
ratio of the combustion chamber when
the piston is at top dead center position,
using nominal combustion chamber
dimensions.
(9) The location of the piston rings on
the piston.
(10) The method of air aspiration
(turbocharged, supercharged, naturally
aspirated, Roots blown).
(11) The turbocharger or supercharger
general performance characteristics
(e.g., approximate boost pressure,
approximate response time,
approximate size relative to engine
displacement).
(12) The type of air inlet cooler (airto-air, air-to-liquid, approximate degree
to which inlet air is cooled).
(13) The intake manifold induction
port size and configuration.
(14) The type of fuel (the fuels with
which the engine is intended or
designed to be operated) and fuel
system configuration.
(15) The configuration of the fuel
injectors and approximate injection
pressure.
(16) The type of fuel injection system
controls (i.e., mechanical or electronic).
(17) The type of smoke control
system.
(18) The exhaust manifold port size
and configuration.
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16089
(19) The type of exhaust
aftertreatment system (oxidation
catalyst, particulate trap), and
characteristics of the aftertreatment
system (catalyst loading, converter size
vs engine size).
(d) [Reserved]
(e) You may subdivide a group of
engines that is identical under
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section into
different engine families if you show the
expected emission characteristics are
different during the useful life.
However, for the purpose of applying
small volume family provisions of this
part, we will consider the otherwise
applicable engine family criteria of this
section.
(f) You may group engines that are not
identical with respect to the things
listed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section in the same engine family, as
follows:
(1) In unusual circumstances, you
may group such engines in the same
engine family if you show that their
emission characteristics during the
useful life will be similar.
(2) If you are a small-volume engine
manufacturer, you may group any
Category 1 engines into a single engine
family or you may group any Category
2 engines into a single engine family.
This also applies if you are a postmanufacture marinizer modifying a base
engine that has a valid certificate of
conformity for any kind of nonroad or
heavy-duty highway engine under this
chapter.
(3) The provisions of this paragraph
(f) do not exempt any engines from
meeting the standards and requirements
in subpart B of this part.
(g) If you combine engines that are
subject to different emission standards
into a single engine family under
paragraph (f) of this section, you must
certify the engine family to the more
stringent set of standards for that model
year.
§ 1042.235 Emission testing required for a
certificate of conformity.
This section describes the emission
testing you must perform to show
compliance with the emission standards
in § 1042.101(a). See § 1042.205(p)
regarding emission testing related to the
NTE standards. See §§ 1042.240 and
1042.245 and 40 CFR part 1065, subpart
E, regarding service accumulation before
emission testing.
(a) Test your emission-data engines
using the procedures and equipment
specified in subpart F of this part.
(b) Select an emission-data engine
from each engine family for testing. For
Category 2 or Category 3 engines, you
may use a development engine that is
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16090
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
equivalent in design to the engine being
certified. Using good engineering
judgment, select the engine
configuration most likely to exceed an
applicable emission standard over the
useful life, considering all exhaust
emission constituents and the range of
installation options available to vessel
manufacturers.
(c) We may measure emissions from
any of your test engines or other engines
from the engine family, as follows:
(1) We may decide to do the testing
at your plant or any other facility. If we
do this, you must deliver the test engine
to a test facility we designate. The test
engine you provide must include
appropriate manifolds, aftertreatment
devices, electronic control units, and
other emission-related components not
normally attached directly to the engine
block. If we do the testing at your plant,
you must schedule it as soon as possible
and make available the instruments,
personnel, and equipment we need.
(2) If we measure emissions from one
of your test engines, the results of that
testing become the official emission
results for the engine. Unless we later
invalidate these data, we may decide
not to consider your data in determining
if your engine family meets applicable
requirements.
(3) Before we test one of your engines,
we may set its adjustable parameters to
any point within the specified
adjustable ranges (see § 1042.115(d)).
(4) Before we test one of your engines,
we may calibrate it within normal
production tolerances for anything we
do not consider an adjustable parameter.
(d) You may ask to use emission data
from a previous model year instead of
doing new tests, but only if all the
following are true:
(1) The engine family from the
previous model year differs from the
current engine family only with respect
to model year or other characteristics
unrelated to emissions. You may also
ask to add a configuration subject to
§ 1042.225.
(2) The emission-data engine from the
previous model year remains the
appropriate emission-data engine under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) The data show that the emissiondata engine would meet all the
requirements that apply to the engine
family covered by the application for
certification. For engines originally
tested under the provisions of 40 CFR
part 94, you may consider those test
procedures to be equivalent to the
procedures we specify in subpart F of
this part.
(e) We may require you to test a
second engine of the same or different
configuration in addition to the engine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
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.
§ 1042.240 Demonstrating compliance with Adjust the official emission results for
exhaust emission standards.
each tested engine at the selected test
(a) For purposes of certification, your
point by multiplying the measured
engine family is considered in
emissions by the deterioration factor. If
compliance with the emission standards the deterioration factor is less than one,
in § 1042.101(a) if all emission-data
use one. A multiplicative deterioration
engines representing that family have
factor may not be appropriate in cases
test results showing deteriorated
where testing variability is significantly
emission levels at or below these
greater than engine-to-engine variability.
standards. Note that your FELs are
Multiplicative deterioration factors must
considered to be the applicable
be specified to one more significant
emission standards with which you
figure than the applicable standard.
must comply if you participate in the
(3) Deterioration factor for crankcase
ABT program in subpart H of this part.
emissions. If your engine vents
(b) Your engine family is deemed not
crankcase emissions to the exhaust or to
to comply if any emission-data engine
the atmosphere, you must account for
representing that family has test results
crankcase emission deterioration, using
showing a deteriorated emission level
good engineering judgment. You may
above an applicable emission standard
use separate deterioration factors for
for any pollutant.
crankcase emissions of each pollutant
(c) To compare emission levels from
(either multiplicative or additive) or
the emission-data engine with the
include the effects in combined
applicable emission standards for
deterioration factors that include
Category 1 and Category 2 engines,
exhaust and crankcase emissions
apply deterioration factors to the
together for each pollutant.
measured emission levels for each
(d) Collect emission data using
pollutant. Section 1042.245 specifies
measurements to one more decimal
how to test your engine to develop
place than the applicable standard.
deterioration factors that represent the
Apply the deterioration factor to the
deterioration expected in emissions over official emission result, as described in
your engines’ full useful life. Your
paragraph (c) of this section, then round
deterioration factors must take into
the adjusted figure to the same number
account any available data from in-use
of decimal places as the emission
testing with similar engines. Smallstandard. Compare the rounded
volume engine manufacturers and post- emission levels to the emission standard
manufacture marinizers may use
for each emission-data engine. In the
assigned deterioration factors that we
case of NOX+HC standards, apply the
establish. Apply deterioration factors as deterioration factor to each pollutant
follows:
and then add the results before
(1) Additive deterioration factor for
rounding.
exhaust emissions. Except as specified
§ 1042.245 Deterioration factors.
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, use
an additive deterioration factor for
For Category 1 and Category 2
exhaust emissions. An additive
engines, establish deterioration factors
deterioration factor is the difference
to determine whether your engines will
between exhaust emissions at the end of meet emission standards for each
the useful life and exhaust emissions at
pollutant throughout the useful life, as
the low-hour test point. In these cases,
described in §§ 1042.101 and 1042.240.
adjust the official emission results for
This section describes how to determine
each tested engine at the selected test
deterioration factors, either with an
point by adding the factor to the
engineering analysis, with pre-existing
measured emissions. If the deterioration test data, or with new emission
factor is less than zero, use zero.
measurements.
(a) You may ask us to approve
Additive deterioration factors must be
deterioration factors for an engine
specified to one more decimal place
family with established technology
than the applicable standard.
(2) Multiplicative deterioration factor
based on engineering analysis instead of
for exhaust emissions. Use a
testing. Engines certified to a NOX+HC
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
standard or FEL greater than the Tier 2
NOX+HC standard described in
Appendix I of this part are considered
to rely on established technology for
gaseous emission control, except that
this does not include any engines that
use exhaust-gas recirculation or
aftertreatment. In most cases,
technologies used to meet the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 emission standards would be
considered to be established technology.
We must approve your plan to establish
a deterioration factor under this
paragraph (a) before you submit your
application for certification.
(b) You may ask us to approve
deterioration factors for an engine
family based on emission measurements
from similar highway or nonroad
engines (including locomotive engines
or other marine engines) if you have
already given us these data for certifying
the other engines in the same or earlier
model years. Use good engineering
judgment to decide whether the two
engines are similar. We must approve
your plan to establish a deterioration
factor under this paragraph (b) before
you submit your application for
certification. We will approve your
request if you show us that the emission
measurements from other engines
reasonably represent in-use
deterioration for the engine family for
which you have not yet determined
deterioration factors.
(c) If you are unable to determine
deterioration factors for an engine
family under paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, first get us to approve a plan for
determining deterioration factors based
on service accumulation and related
testing. Your plan must involve
measuring emissions from an emissiondata engine at least three times with
evenly spaced intervals of service
accumulation such that the resulting
measurements and calculations will
represent the deterioration expected
from in-use engines over the full useful
life. You may use extrapolation to
determine deterioration factors once you
have established a trend of changing
emissions with age for each pollutant.
You may use an engine installed in a
vessel to accumulate service hours
instead of running the engine only in
the laboratory. You may perform
maintenance on emission-data engines
as described in § 1042.125 and 40 CFR
part 1065, subpart E.
(d) Include the following information
in your application for certification:
(1) If you use test data from a different
engine family, explain why this is
appropriate and include all the emission
measurements on which you base the
deterioration factor.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(2) If you determine your
deterioration factors based on
engineering analysis, explain why this
is appropriate and include a statement
that all data, analyses, evaluations, and
other information you used are available
for our review upon request.
(3) If you do testing to determine
deterioration factors, describe the form
and extent of service accumulation,
including a rationale for selecting the
service-accumulation period and the
method you use to accumulate hours.
§ 1042.250
Recordkeeping and reporting.
(a) If you produce engines under any
provisions of this part that are related to
production volumes, send the
Designated Compliance Officer a report
within 30 days after the end of the
model year describing the total number
of engines you produced in each engine
family. For example, if you use special
provisions intended for small-volume
engine manufacturers, report your
production volumes to show that you do
not exceed the applicable limits.
(b) Organize and maintain the
following records:
(1) A copy of all applications and any
summary information you send us.
(2) Any of the information we specify
in § 1042.205 that you were not required
to include in your application.
(3) A detailed history of each
emission-data engine. For each engine,
describe all of the following:
(i) The emission-data engine’s
construction, including its origin and
buildup, steps you took to ensure that
it represents production engines, any
components you built specially for it,
and all the components you include in
your application for certification.
(ii) How you accumulated engine
operating hours (service accumulation),
including the dates and the number of
hours accumulated.
(iii) All maintenance, including
modifications, parts changes, and other
service, and the dates and reasons for
the maintenance.
(iv) All your emission tests (valid and
invalid), including documentation on
routine and standard tests, as specified
in part 40 CFR part 1065, and the date
and purpose of each test.
(v) All tests to diagnose engine or
emission-control performance, giving
the date and time of each and the
reasons for the test.
(vi) Any other significant events.
(4) Production figures for each engine
family divided by assembly plant.
(5) Keep a list of engine identification
numbers for all the engines you produce
under each certificate of conformity.
(c) Keep data from routine emission
tests (such as test cell temperatures and
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16091
relative humidity readings) for one year
after we issue the associated certificate
of conformity. Keep all other
information specified in paragraph (a) of
this section for eight years after we issue
your certificate.
(d) Store these records in any format
and on any media, as long as you can
promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.
(e) Send us copies of any engine
maintenance instructions or
explanations if we ask for them.
§ 1042.255
EPA decisions.
(a) If we determine your application is
complete and shows that the engine
family meets all the requirements of this
part and the Clean Air Act, we will
issue a certificate of conformity for your
engine family for that model year. We
may make the approval subject to
additional conditions.
(b) We may deny your application for
certification if we determine that your
engine family fails to comply with
emission standards or other
requirements of this part or the Clean
Air Act. Our decision may be based on
a review of all information available to
us. If we deny your application, we will
explain why in writing.
(c) In addition, we may deny your
application or suspend or revoke your
certificate if you do any of the
following:
(1) Refuse to comply with any testing
or reporting requirements.
(2) Submit false or incomplete
information (paragraph (e) of this
section applies if this is fraudulent).
(3) Render inaccurate any test data.
(4) Deny us from completing
authorized activities (see 40 CFR
1068.20). This includes a failure to
provide reasonable assistance.
(5) Produce engines for importation
into the United States at a location
where local law prohibits us from
carrying out authorized activities.
(6) Fail to supply requested
information or amend your application
to include all engines being produced.
(7) Take any action that otherwise
circumvents the intent of the Clean Air
Act or this part.
(d) We may void your certificate if
you do not keep the records we require
or do not give us information as
required under this part or the Clean Air
Act.
(e) We may void your certificate if we
find that you intentionally submitted
false or incomplete information.
(f) If we deny your application or
suspend, revoke, or void your
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16092
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
certificate, you may ask for a hearing
(see § 1042.820).
Subpart D—Testing Production-Line
Engines
§ 1042.301
General provisions.
(a) If you produce engines that are
subject to the requirements of this part,
you must test them as described in this
subpart, except as follows:
(1) Small-volume engine
manufacturers may omit testing under
this subpart.
(2) We may exempt Category 1 engine
families with a projected U.S.-directed
production volume below 100 engines
from routine testing under this subpart.
Request this exemption in the
application for certification and include
your basis for projecting a production
volume below 100 units. You must
promptly notify us if your actual
production exceeds 100 units during the
model year. If you exceed the
production limit or if there is evidence
of a nonconformity, we may require you
to test production-line engines under
this subpart, or under 40 CFR part 1068,
subpart D, even if we have approved an
exemption under this paragraph (a)(2).
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(3) [Reserved]
(b) We may suspend or revoke your
certificate of conformity for certain
engine families if your production-line
engines do not meet the requirements of
this part or you do not fulfill your
obligations under this subpart (see
§§ 1042.325 and 1042.340).
(c) Other requirements apply to
engines that you produce. Other
regulatory provisions authorize us to
suspend, revoke, or void your certificate
of conformity, or order recalls for
engines families without regard to
whether they have passed these
production-line testing requirements.
The requirements of this subpart do not
affect our ability to do selective
enforcement audits, as described in 40
CFR part 1068. Individual engines in
families that pass these production-line
testing requirements must also conform
to all applicable regulations of this part
and 40 CFR part 1068.
(d) You may ask to use an alternate
program for testing production-line
engines. In your request, you must show
us that the alternate program gives equal
assurance that your products meet the
requirements of this part. We may waive
some or all of this subpart’s
requirements if we approve your
alternate program.
(e) If you certify an engine family with
carryover emission data, as described in
§ 1042.235(d), and these equivalent
engine families consistently pass the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
(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
§ 1042.305 Preparing and testing
production-line engines, as follows:
production-line engines.
(1) You may stabilize emission levels
This section describes how to prepare by operating the engine in a way that
and test production-line engines. You
represents the way production engines
must assemble the test engine in a way
will be used, using good engineering
that represents the assembly procedures judgment, for no more than the greater
for other engines in the engine family.
of two periods:
You must ask us to approve any
(i) 300 hours.
deviations from your normal assembly
(ii) The number of hours you operated
procedures for other production engines your emission-data engine for certifying
in the engine family.
the engine family (see 40 CFR part 1065,
(a) Test procedures. Test your
subpart E, or the applicable regulations
production-line engines using the
governing how you should prepare your
applicable testing procedures in subpart test engine).
F of this part to show you meet the duty(2) For Category 2 engines, you may
cycle emission standards in subpart B of ask us to approve a Green Engine Factor
this part. The not-to-exceed standards
for each regulated pollutant for each
apply for this testing, but you need not
engine family. Use the Green Engine
do additional testing to show that
Factor to adjust measured emission
production-line engines meet the not-to- levels to establish a stabilized low-hour
exceed standards.
emission level.
(b) Modifying a test engine. Once an
(f) Damage during shipment. If
engine is selected for testing (see
shipping an engine to a remote facility
§ 1042.310), you may adjust, repair,
for production-line testing makes
prepare, or modify it or check its
necessary an adjustment or repair, you
emissions only if one of the following is must wait until after the initial emission
true:
test to do this work. We may waive this
(1) You document the need for doing
requirement if the test would be
so in your procedures for assembling
impossible or unsafe, or if it would
and inspecting all your production
permanently damage the engine. Report
engines and make the action routine for to us in your written report under
all the engines in the engine family.
§ 1042.345 all adjustments or repairs
(2) This subpart otherwise specifically you make on test engines before each
allows your action.
test.
(3) We approve your action in
(g) Retesting after invalid tests. You
advance.
may retest an engine if you determine
(c) Engine malfunction. If an engine
an emission test is invalid under
malfunction prevents further emission
subpart F of this part. Explain in your
testing, ask us to approve your decision
written report reasons for invalidating
to either repair the engine or delete it
any test and the emission results from
from the test sequence.
all tests. If you retest an engine, you
(d) Setting adjustable parameters.
may ask us to substitute results of the
Before any test, we may require you to
new tests for the original ones. You
adjust any adjustable parameter on a
must ask us within ten days of testing.
Category 1 engine to any setting within
We will generally answer within ten
its physically adjustable range. We may
days after we receive your information.
adjust or require you to adjust any
§ 1042.310 Engine selection.
adjustable parameter on a Category 2
engine to any setting within its
(a) Determine minimum sample sizes
approved adjustable range.
as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(1) For Category 1 engines, the
minimum sample size is one engine or
one percent of the projected U.S.directed production volume for all your
Category 1 engine families, whichever is
greater.
(2) For Category 2 engines, the
minimum sample size is one engine or
one percent of the projected U.S.directed production volume for all your
Category 2 engine families, whichever is
greater.
(b) Randomly select one engine from
each category early in the model year
from the engine family with the highest
projected U.S.-directed production
volume. For further testing to reach the
minimum sample size, randomly select
a proportional sample from each engine
family, with testing distributed evenly
over the course of the model year.
(c) For each engine that fails to meet
emission standards, test two engines
from the same engine family from the
next fifteen engines produced or within
seven calendar days, which is later. If an
engine fails to meet emission standards
for any pollutant, count it as a failing
engine under this paragraph (c).
(d) Continue testing until one of the
following things happens:
(1) You test the number of engines
specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of
this section.
(2) The engine family does not
comply according to § 1042.315 or you
choose to declare that the engine family
does not comply with the requirements
of this subpart.
(3) You test 30 engines from the
engine family.
(e) You may elect to test more
randomly chosen engines than we
require under this section.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.315
Determining compliance.
This section describes the pass-fail
criteria for the production-line testing
requirements. We apply these criteria on
an engine-family basis. See § 1042.320
for the requirements that apply to
individual engines that fail a
production-line test.
(a) Calculate your test results as
follows:
(1) Initial and final test results.
Calculate the test results for each
engine. If you do several tests on an
engine, calculate the initial test results,
then add them together and divide by
the number of tests for the final test
results on that engine. Include the Green
Engine Factor to determine low-hour
emission results, if applicable.
(2) Final deteriorated test results.
Apply the deterioration factor for the
engine family to the final test results
(see § 1042.240(c)).
(3) Round deteriorated test results.
Round the results to the number of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
decimal places in the emission standard
expressed to one more decimal place.
(b) If a production-line engine fails to
meet emission standards and you test
two additional engines as described in
§ 1042.310, calculate the average
emission level for each pollutant for the
three engines. If the calculated average
emission level for any pollutant exceeds
the applicable emission standard, the
engine family fails the production-line
testing requirements of this subpart. Tell
us within ten working days if this
happens. You may request to amend the
application for certification to raise the
FEL of the engine family as described in
§ 1042.225(f).
§ 1042.320 What happens if one of my
production-line engines fails to meet
emission standards?
(a) If you have a production-line
engine with final deteriorated test
results exceeding one or more emission
standards (see § 1042.315(a)), the
certificate of conformity is automatically
suspended for that failing engine. You
must take the following actions before
your certificate of conformity can cover
that engine:
(1) Correct the problem and retest the
engine to show it complies with all
emission standards.
(2) Include in your written report a
description of the test results and the
remedy for each engine (see § 1042.345).
(b) You may request to amend the
application for certification to raise the
FEL of the entire engine family at this
point (see § 1042.225).
§ 1042.325 What happens if an engine
family fails the production-line testing
requirements?
(a) We may suspend your certificate of
conformity for an engine family if it fails
under § 1042.315. The suspension may
apply to all facilities producing engines
from an engine family, even if you find
noncompliant engines only at one
facility.
(b) We will tell you in writing if we
suspend your certificate in whole or in
part. We will not suspend a certificate
until at least 15 days after the engine
family fails. The suspension is effective
when you receive our notice.
(c) Up to 15 days after we suspend the
certificate for an engine family, you may
ask for a hearing (see § 1042.820). If we
agree before a hearing occurs that we
used erroneous information in deciding
to suspend the certificate, we will
reinstate the certificate.
(d) Section 1042.335 specifies steps
you must take to remedy the cause of
the engine family’s production-line
failure. All the engines you have
produced since the end of the last test
PO 00000
Frm 00157
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16093
period are presumed noncompliant and
should be addressed in your proposed
remedy. We may require you to apply
the remedy to engines produced earlier
if we determine that the cause of the
failure is likely to have affected the
earlier engines.
(e) You may request to amend the
application for certification to raise the
FEL of the entire engine family as
described in § 1051.225(f). We will
approve your request if it is clear that
you used good engineering judgment in
establishing the original FEL.
§ 1042.330 Selling engines from an engine
family with a suspended certificate of
conformity.
You may sell engines that you
produce after we suspend the engine
family’s certificate of conformity under
§ 1042.315 only if one of the following
occurs:
(a) You test each engine you produce
and show it complies with emission
standards that apply.
(b) We conditionally reinstate the
certificate for the engine family. We may
do so if you agree to recall all the
affected engines and remedy any
noncompliance at no expense to the
owner if later testing shows that the
engine family still does not comply.
§ 1042.335 Reinstating suspended
certificates.
(a) Send us a written report asking us
to reinstate your suspended certificate.
In your report, identify the reason for
noncompliance, propose a remedy for
the engine family, and commit to a date
for carrying it out. In your proposed
remedy include any quality control
measures you propose to keep the
problem from happening again.
(b) Give us data from production-line
testing that shows the remedied engine
family complies with all the emission
standards that apply.
§ 1042.340 When may EPA revoke my
certificate under this subpart and how may
I sell these engines again?
(a) We may revoke your certificate for
an engine family in the following cases:
(1) You do not meet the reporting
requirements.
(2) Your engine family fails to comply
with the requirements of this subpart
and your proposed remedy to address a
suspended certificate under § 1042.325
is inadequate to solve the problem or
requires you to change the engine’s
design or emission-control system.
(b) To sell engines from an engine
family with a revoked certificate of
conformity, you must modify the engine
family and then show it complies with
the requirements of this part.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16094
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(1) If we determine your proposed
design change may not control
emissions for the engine’s full useful
life, we will tell you within five working
days after receiving your report. In this
case we will decide whether
production-line testing will be enough
for us to evaluate the change or whether
you need to do more testing.
(2) Unless we require more testing,
you may show compliance by testing
production-line engines as described in
this subpart.
(3) We will issue a new or updated
certificate of conformity when you have
met these requirements.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.345
Reporting.
You must do all the following things
unless we ask you to send us less
information:
(a) Within 30 calendar days of the end
of each quarter in which productionline testing occurs, send us a report with
the following information:
(1) Describe any facility used to test
production-line engines and state its
location.
(2) State the total U.S.-directed
production volume and number of tests
for each engine family.
(3) Describe how you randomly
selected engines.
(4) Describe each test engine,
including the engine family’s
identification and the engine’s model
year, build date, model number,
identification number, and number of
hours of operation before testing. Also
describe how you developed and
applied the Green Engine Factor, if
applicable.
(5) Identify how you accumulated
hours of operation on the engines and
describe the procedure and schedule
you used.
(6) Provide the test number; the date,
time and duration of testing; test
procedure; initial test results before and
after rounding; final test results; and
final deteriorated test results for all
tests. Provide the emission results for all
measured pollutants. Include
information for both valid and invalid
tests and the reason for any
invalidation.
(7) Describe completely and justify
any nonroutine adjustment,
modification, repair, preparation,
maintenance, or test for the test engine
if you did not report it separately under
this subpart. Include the results of any
emission measurements, regardless of
the procedure or type of engine.
(8) Report on each failed engine as
described in § 1042.320.
(9) Identify when the model year ends
for each engine family.
(b) We may ask you to add
information to your written report so we
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
can determine whether your new
engines conform with the requirements
of this subpart.
(c) An authorized representative of
your company must sign the following
statement: We submit this report under
sections 208 and 213 of the Clean Air
Act. Our production-line testing
conformed completely with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 1042. We
have not changed production processes
or quality-control procedures for test
engines in a way that might affect
emission controls. All the information
in this report is true and accurate to the
best of my knowledge. I know of the
penalties for violating the Clean Air Act
and the regulations. (Authorized
Company Representative)
(d) Send electronic reports of
production-line testing to the
Designated Compliance Officer using an
approved information format. If you
want to use a different format, send us
a written request with justification for a
waiver.
(e) We will send copies of your
reports to anyone from the public who
asks for them. See § 1042.815 for
information on how we treat
information you consider confidential.
§ 1042.350
Recordkeeping.
(a) Organize and maintain your
records as described in this section. We
may review your records at any time.
(b) Keep records of your productionline testing for eight years after you
complete all the testing required for an
engine family in a model year. You may
use any appropriate storage formats or
media.
(c) Keep a copy of the written reports
described in § 1042.345.
(d) Keep the following additional
records:
(1) A description of all test equipment
for each test cell that you can use to test
production-line engines.
(2) The names of supervisors involved
in each test.
(3) The name of anyone who
authorizes adjusting, repairing,
preparing, or modifying a test engine
and the names of all supervisors who
oversee this work.
(4) If you shipped the engine for
testing, the date you shipped it, the
associated storage or port facility, and
the date the engine arrived at the testing
facility.
(5) Any records related to your
production-line tests that are not in the
written report.
(6) A brief description of any
significant events during testing not
otherwise described in the written
report or in this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00158
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) Any information specified in
§ 1042.345 that you do not include in
your written reports.
(e) If we ask, you must give us
projected or actual production figures
for an engine family. We may ask you
to divide your production figures by
maximum engine power, displacement,
fuel type, or assembly plant (if you
produce engines at more than one
plant).
(f) Keep a list of engine identification
numbers for all the engines you produce
under each certificate of conformity.
Give us this list within 30 days if we ask
for it.
(g) We may ask you to keep or send
other information necessary to
implement this subpart.
Subpart E—In-use Testing
§ 1042.401
General Provisions.
We may perform in-use testing of any
engine subject to the standards of this
part.
Subpart F—Test Procedures
§ 1042.501
test?
How do I run a valid emission
(a) Use the equipment and procedures
for compression-ignition engines in 40
CFR part 1065 to determine whether
Category 1 and Category 2 engines meet
the duty-cycle emission standards in
§ 1042.101(a). Measure the emissions of
all regulated pollutants as specified in
40 CFR part 1065. Use the applicable
duty cycles specified in § 1042.505.
(b) Section 1042.515 describes the
supplemental test procedures for
evaluating whether engines meet the
not-to-exceed emission standards in
§ 1042.101(c).
(c) Use the fuels and lubricants
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart
H, for all the testing we require in this
part, except as specified in § 1042.515.
(1) For service accumulation, use the
test fuel or any commercially available
fuel that is representative of the fuel that
in-use engines will use.
(2) For diesel-fueled engines, use the
appropriate diesel fuel specified in 40
CFR part 1065, subpart H, for emission
testing. Unless we specify otherwise, the
appropriate diesel test fuel is the ultra
low-sulfur diesel fuel. If we allow you
to use a test fuel with higher sulfur
levels, identify the test fuel in your
application for certification and ensure
that the emission control information
label is consistent with your selection of
the test fuel (see § 1042.135(c)(10)). For
Category 2 engines, you may ask to use
commercially available diesel fuel
similar but not necessarily identical to
the applicable fuel specified in 40 CFR
part 1065, subpart H.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) For Category 1 and Category 2
engines that are expected to use a type
of fuel (or mixed fuel) other than diesel
fuel (such as natural gas, methanol, or
residual fuel), use a commercially
available fuel of that type for emission
testing. If an engine is designed to
operate on different fuels, we may (at
our discretion) require testing on each
fuel. Propose test fuel specifications that
take into account the engine design and
the properties of commercially available
fuels. Describe these test fuel
specifications in the application for
certification.
(4) [Reserved]
(d) You may use special or alternate
procedures to the extent we allow them
under 40 CFR 1065.10.
(e) This subpart is addressed to you as
a manufacturer, but it applies equally to
anyone who does testing for you, and to
us when we perform testing to
determine if your engines meet emission
standards.
(f) Duty-cycle testing is limited to
ambient temperatures of 20 to 30 °C.
Atmospheric pressure must be between
91.000 and 103.325 kPa, and must be
within ±5% of the value recorded at the
time of the last engine map. Testing may
be performed with any ambient
humidity level. Correct duty-cycle NOX
emissions for humidity as specified in
40 CFR part 1065.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.505 Testing engines using discretemode or ramped-modal duty cycles.
This section describes how to test
engines under steady-state conditions.
In some cases, we allow you to choose
the appropriate steady-state duty cycle
for an engine. In these cases, you must
use the duty cycle you select in your
application for certification for all
testing you perform for that engine
family. If we test your engines to
confirm that they meet emission
standards, we will use the duty cycles
you select for your own testing. We may
also perform other testing as allowed by
the Clean Air Act.
(a) You may perform steady-state
testing with either discrete-mode or
ramped-modal cycles, as follows:
(1) For discrete-mode testing, sample
emissions separately for each mode,
then calculate an average emission level
for the whole cycle using the weighting
factors specified for each mode.
Calculate cycle statistics for each mode
and compare with the specified values
in 40 CFR part 1065 to confirm that the
test is valid. Operate the engine and
sampling system as follows:
(i) Engines with NOX aftertreatment.
For engines that depend on
aftertreatment to meet the NOX emission
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
standard, operate the engine for 5–6
minutes, then sample emissions for 1–
3 minutes in each mode. You may
extend the sampling time to improve
measurement accuracy of PM emissions,
using good engineering judgment. If you
have a longer sampling time for PM
emissions, calculate and validate cycle
statistics separately for the gaseous and
PM sampling periods.
(ii) Engines without NOX
aftertreatment. For other engines,
operate the engine for at least 5 minutes,
then sample emissions for at least 1
minute in each mode.
(2) For ramped-modal testing, start
sampling at the beginning of the first
mode and continue sampling until the
end of the last mode. Calculate
emissions and cycle statistics the same
as for transient testing as specified in 40
CFR part 1065, subpart G.
(b) Measure emissions by testing the
engine on a dynamometer with one of
the following duty cycles (as specified)
to determine whether it meets the
emission standards in § 1042.101(a):
(1) General cycle. Use the 4-mode
duty cycle or the corresponding
ramped-modal cycle described in
paragraph (a) of Appendix II of this part
for commercial propulsion engines with
maximum engine power at or above 19
kW that are used with (or intended to
be used with) fixed-pitch propellers,
and any other engines for which the
other duty cycles of this section do not
apply.
(2) Recreational engines. Use the 5mode 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 5mode 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
PO 00000
Frm 00159
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16095
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 6mode duty cycle or the corresponding
ramped-modal cycle described in 40
CFR part 1039, Appendix III for
variable-speed engines with maximum
engine power below 19 kW.
(c) During idle mode, operate the
engine with the following parameters:
(1) Hold the speed within your
specifications.
(2) Set the engine to operate at its
minimum fueling rate.
(3) Keep engine torque under 5
percent of maximum test torque.
(d) For full-load operating modes,
operate the engine at its maximum
fueling rate. However, for constantspeed engines whose design prevents
full-load operation for extended periods,
you may ask for approval under 40 CFR
1065.10(c) to replace full-load operation
with the maximum load for which the
engine is designed to operate for
extended periods.
(e) See 40 CFR part 1065 for detailed
specifications of tolerances and
calculations.
§ 1042.515 Test procedures related to notto-exceed standards.
(a) This section describes the
procedures to determine whether your
engines meet the not-to-exceed emission
standards in § 1042.101(c). These
procedures may include any normal
engine operation and ambient
conditions that the engines may
experience in use. Paragraphs (c)
through (e) of this section define the
limits of what we will consider normal
engine operation and ambient
conditions.
(b) Measure emissions with one of the
following procedures:
(1) Remove the selected engines for
testing in a laboratory. You may use an
engine dynamometer to simulate normal
operation, as described in this section.
Use the equipment and procedures
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to
conduct laboratory testing.
(2) Test the selected engines while
they remain installed in a vessel. Use
the equipment and procedures specified
in 40 CFR part 1065 subpart J, to
conduct field testing. Use fuel meeting
the specifications of 40 CFR part 1065,
subpart H, or a fuel typical of what you
would expect the engine to use in
service.
(c) Engine testing may occur under
the following ranges of ambient
conditions without correcting measured
emission levels:
(1) Barometric pressure must be
between 91.000 and 103.325 kPa.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16096
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(2) Ambient air temperature must be
between 13 and 35 °C (or between 13 °C
and 30 °C for engines not drawing
intake air directly from a space that
could be heated by the engine).
(3) Ambient water temperature must
be between 5 and 27 °C.
(4) Ambient humidity between 7.1
and 10.7 grams of moisture per kilogram
of dry air.
(d) Engine testing may occur at any
conditions expected during normal
operation but that are outside the
conditions described in paragraph (b) of
this section, as long as measured values
are corrected to be equivalent to the
nearest end of the specified range, using
good engineering judgment. Correct
NOX emissions for humidity as
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart
G.
(e) The sampling period may not
begin until the engine has reached
stable operating temperatures. For
example, this would include only
engine operation after starting and after
the engine thermostat starts modulating
the engine’s coolant temperature. The
sampling period may not include engine
starting.
(f) For analyzing data to determine
compliance with the NTE standards,
refer to § 1042.101(c) and Appendix III
of this part 1042 for the NTE standards
and the NTE zones, subzones, and any
other conditions where emission data
may be included or excluded.
§ 1042.520 What testing must I perform to
establish deterioration factors?
Sections 1042.240 and 1042.245
describe the required methods for
testing to establish deterioration factors
for an engine family.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
average less than once per typical mode
in a discrete-mode test.
(a) Developing adjustment factors.
Develop an upward adjustment factor
and a downward adjustment factor for
each pollutant based on measured
emission data and observed
regeneration frequency. Adjustment
factors should generally apply to an
entire engine family, but you may
develop separate adjustment factors for
different engine configurations within
an engine family. If you use adjustment
factors for certification, you must
identify the frequency factor, F, from
paragraph (b) of this section in your
application for certification and use the
adjustment factors in all testing for that
engine family. You may use carryover or
carry-across data to establish adjustment
factors for an engine family, as
described in § 1042.235(d), consistent
with good engineering judgment. All
adjustment factors for regeneration are
additive. Determine adjustment factors
separately for different test segments.
For example, determine separate
adjustment factors for different modes of
a discrete-mode steady-state test. You
may use either of the following different
approaches for engines that use
aftertreatment with infrequent
regeneration events:
(1) You may disregard this section if
regeneration does not significantly affect
emission levels for an engine family (or
configuration) or if it is not practical to
identify when regeneration occurs. If
you do not use adjustment factors under
this section, your engines must meet
emission standards for all testing,
without regard to regeneration.
(2) If your engines use aftertreatment
technology with extremely infrequent
regeneration and you are unable to
apply the provisions of this section, you
may ask us to approve an alternate
methodology to account for regeneration
events.
(b) Calculating average adjustment
factors. Calculate the average
adjustment factor (EFA) based on the
following equation:
EFA = (F)(EFH) + (1¥F)(EFL)
Where:
F = The frequency of the regeneration event
in terms of the fraction of tests during
which the regeneration occurs.
EFH = Measured emissions from a test
segment in which the regeneration
occurs.
EFL = Measured emissions from a test
segment in which the regeneration does not
occur.
(c) Applying adjustment factors.
Apply adjustment factors based on
whether regeneration occurs during the
test run. You must be able to identify
PO 00000
Frm 00160
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
regeneration in a way that is readily
apparent during all testing.
(1) If regeneration does not occur
during a test segment, add an upward
adjustment factor to the measured
emission rate. Determine the upward
adjustment factor (UAF) using the
following equation:
UAF = EFA¥EFL
(2) If regeneration occurs or starts to
occur during a test segment, subtract a
downward adjustment factor from the
measured emission rate. Determine the
downward adjustment factor (DAF)
using the following equation:
DAF = EFH¥EFA
(d) Sample calculation. If EFL is 0.10
g/kW-hr, EFH is 0.50 g/kW-hr, and F is
0.1 (the regeneration occurs once for
each ten tests), then:
EFA = (0.1)(0.5 g/kW-hr) + (1.0¥0.1)(0.1
g/kW-hr) = 0.14 g/kW-hr.
UAF = 0.14 g/kW-hr¥0.10 g/kW-hr =
0.04
g/kW-hr.
DAF = 0.50 g/kW-hr¥0.14 g/kW-hr =
0.36
g/kW-hr.
(e) Ramped modal testing. Develop a
single set of adjustment factors for the
entire test. If a regeneration has started
but has not been completed when you
reach the end of a test, use good
engineering judgment to reduce your
downward adjustments to be
proportional to the emission impact that
occurred in the test.
(f) Discrete-mode testing. Develop
separate adjustment factors for each test
mode. If a regeneration has started but
has not been completed when you reach
the end of the sampling time for a test
mode, extend the sampling period for
that mode until the regeneration is
completed.
Subpart G—Special Compliance
Provisions
§ 1042.601 General compliance provisions
for marine engines and vessels.
Engine and vessel manufacturers, as
well as owners, operators, and
rebuilders of engines and vessels subject
to the requirements of this part, and all
other persons, must observe the
provisions of this part, the requirements
and prohibitions in 40 CFR part 1068,
and the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068
apply for marine compression-ignition
engines as specified in that part, except
as follows:
(a) Installing a recreational marine
engine in a vessel that is not a
recreational vessel is a violation of 40
CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
(b) In addition to the provisions listed
for the national security exemption in
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR 1068.225(b), your engine is
exempt without a request if you produce
it for a piece of equipment owned or
used by an agency of the federal
government responsible for national
defense, where the equipment has
specialized electronic warfare systems,
unique stealth performance
requirements, and/or unique combat
maneuverability requirements.
(c) For replacement engines, apply the
provisions of 40 CFR 1068.240(b)(3) as
follows:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, this paragraph
applies instead of the provisions of 40
CFR 1068.240(b)(3). The prohibitions in
40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) do not apply to
a new replacement engine if all of the
following are true:
(i) We determine that no engine
certified to the requirements of this part
is produced by any manufacturer with
the appropriate physical or performance
characteristics to repower a vessel.
(ii) The replacement engine meets the
most stringent standards possible, and
at least as stringent as those of the
original engine. For example, if at a time
in which Tier 3 standards apply, an
engine originally certified as a Tier 1
engine is being replaced, the
replacement must meet the Tier 2
requirements if we determine that a Tier
2 engine can be used as a replacement;
otherwise it must meet the Tier 1
requirements.
(iii) The engine manufacturer must
take possession of the original engine or
make sure it is destroyed.
(iv) The replacement engine must be
clearly labeled to show that it does not
comply with the standards and that sale
or installation of the engine for any
purpose other than as a replacement
engine is a violation of federal law and
subject to civil penalty.
(2) The provisions of 40 CFR
1068.240(b)(3) for replacement engines
apply only if a new engine is needed to
replace an engine that has experienced
catastrophic failure. If this occurs, the
engine manufacturer must keep records
for eight years explaining why a
certified engine was not available and
make these records available upon
request. Modifying a vessel to
significantly increase its value within
six months after installing replacement
engines under this paragraph (c)(2) is a
violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
(d) Misfueling a marine engine
labeled as requiring the use of ultra lowsulfur diesel with higher-sulfur fuel is a
violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1). It is
also a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1)
if an engine installer or vessel
manufacturer fails to follow the engine
manufacturer’s installation instructions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
when installing a certified engine in a
marine vessel.
(e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.120
apply when rebuilding marine engines.
The following additional requirements
also apply when rebuilding marine
engines equipped with exhaust
aftertreatment:
(1) Follow all instructions from the
engine manufacturer and aftertreatment
manufacturer for checking, repairing,
and replacing aftertreatment
components. For example, you must
replace the catalyst if the catalyst
assembly is stamped with a build date
more than ten years ago and the
manufacturer’s instructions state that
catalysts over ten years old must be
replaced when the engine is rebuilt.
(2) Measure pressure drop across the
catalyst assembly to ensure that it is
neither higher than nor lower than the
manufacturer’s specifications.
(3) For urea-based SCR systems
equipped with exhaust sensors, verify
that sensor outputs are within the
manufacturer’s recommended range and
repair or replace any malfunctioning
components (sensors, catalysts, or other
components).
§ 1042.605 Dressing engines already
certified to other standards for nonroad or
heavy-duty highway engines for marine
use.
(a) General provisions. If you are an
engine manufacturer (including
someone who marinizes a land-based
engine), this section allows you to
introduce new marine engines into U.S.
commerce if they are already certified to
the requirements that apply to
compression-ignition engines under 40
CFR parts 85 and 86 or 40 CFR part 89,
92, 1033, or 1039 for the appropriate
model year. If you comply with all the
provisions of this section, we consider
the certificate issued under 40 CFR part
86, 89, 92, 1033, or 1039 for each engine
to also be a valid certificate of
conformity under this part 1042 for its
model year, without a separate
application for certification under the
requirements of this part 1042.
(b) Boat-builder provisions. If you are
not an engine manufacturer, you may
install an engine certified for the
appropriate model year under 40 CFR
part 86, 89, 92, 1033, or 1039 in a
marine vessel as long as you do not
make any of the changes described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section and you
meet the requirements of paragraph (e)
of this section. If you modify the nonmarine engine in any of the ways
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, we will consider you a
manufacturer of a new marine engine.
Such engine modifications prevent you
PO 00000
Frm 00161
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16097
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16098
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
aftertreatment devices and all related
components.
(ii) Replacing an original
turbocharger, except that small-volume
engine manufacturers may replace an
original turbocharger on a recreational
engine with one that matches the
performance of the original
turbocharger.
(iii) Modify or design the marine
engine cooling or aftercooling system so
that temperatures or heat rejection rates
are outside the original engine
manufacturer’s specified ranges.
(4) You must show that fewer than 10
percent of the engine family’s total sales
in the United States are used in marine
applications. This includes engines
used in any application, without regard
to which company manufactures the
vessel or equipment. Show this as
follows:
(i) If you are the original manufacturer
of the engine, base this showing on your
sales information.
(ii) In all other cases, you must get the
original manufacturer of the engine to
confirm this based on its sales
information.
(e) Labeling and documentation. If
you are an engine manufacturer or boat
builder using this exemption, you must
do all of the following:
(1) Make sure the original engine label
will remain clearly visible after
installation in the vessel.
(2) Add a permanent supplemental
label to the engine in a position where
it will remain clearly visible after
installation in the vessel. In your engine
label, do the following:
(i) Include the heading: ‘‘Marine
Engine Emission Control Information’’.
(ii) Include your full corporate name
and trademark.
(iii) State: ‘‘This engine was
marinized without affecting its emission
controls.’’.
(iv) State the date you finished
marinizing the engine (month and year).
(3) Send the Designated Compliance
Officer a signed letter by the end of each
calendar year (or less often if we tell
you) with all the following information:
(i) Identify your full corporate name,
address, and telephone number.
(ii) List the engine models for which
you expect to use this exemption in the
coming year and describe your basis for
meeting the sales restrictions of
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(iii) State: ‘‘We prepare each listed
engine model for marine application
without making any changes that could
increase its certified emission levels, as
described in 40 CFR 1042.605.’’.
(f) Failure to comply. If your engines
do not meet the criteria listed in
paragraph (d) of this section, they will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
be subject to the standards,
requirements, and prohibitions of this
part 1042 and the certificate issued
under 40 CFR part 86, 89, 92, 1033, or
1039 will not be deemed to also be a
certificate issued under this part 1042.
Introducing these engines into U.S.
commerce as marine engines without a
valid exemption or certificate of
conformity under this part violates the
prohibitions in 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1).
(g) Data submission. (1) If you are
both the original manufacturer and
marinizer of an exempted engine, you
must send us emission test data on the
appropriate marine duty cycles. You can
include the data in your application for
certification or in the letter described in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(2) If you are the original
manufacturer of an exempted engine
that is marinized by a post-manufacture
marinizer, you may be required to send
us emission test data on the appropriate
marine duty cycles. If such data are
requested you will be allowed a
reasonable amount of time to collect the
data.
(h) Participation in averaging,
banking and trading. Engines adapted
for marine use under this section may
not generate or use emission credits
under this part 1042. These engines may
generate credits under the ABT
provisions in 40 CFR part 86, 89, 92,
1033, or 1039, as applicable. These
engines must use emission credits under
40 CFR part 86, 89, 92, 1033, or 1039
as applicable if they are certified to an
FEL that exceeds an emission standard.
(i) Operator requirements. The
requirements specified for vessel
manufacturers, owners, and operators in
this subpart (including requirements in
40 CFR part 1068) apply to these
engines whether they are certified under
this part 1042 or another part as allowed
by this section.
§ 1042.610 Certifying auxiliary marine
engines to land-based standards.
This section applies to auxiliary
marine engines that are identical to
certified land-based engines. See
§ 1042.605 for provisions that apply to
propulsion marine engines or auxiliary
marine engines that are modified for
marine applications.
(a) General provisions. If you are an
engine manufacturer, this section allows
you to introduce new marine engines
into U.S. commerce if they are already
certified to the requirements that apply
to compression-ignition engines under
40 CFR part 89 or 1039 for the
appropriate model year. If you comply
with all the provisions of this section,
we consider the certificate issued under
40 CFR part 89 or 1039 for each engine
PO 00000
Frm 00162
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
40 CFR part 1068) apply to these
engines whether they are certified under
this part 1042 or another part as allowed
by this section.
§ 1042.620 Engines used solely for
competition.
The provisions of this section apply
for new engines and vessels built on or
after January 1, 2009.
(a) We may grant you an exemption
from the standards and requirements of
this part for a new engine on the
grounds that it is to be used solely for
competition. The requirements of this
part, other than those in this section, do
not apply to engines that we exempt for
use solely for competition.
(b) We will exempt engines that we
determine will be used solely for
competition. The basis of our
determination is described in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
Exemptions granted under this section
are good for only one model year and
you must request renewal for each
subsequent model year. We will not
approve your renewal request if we
determine the engine will not be used
solely for competition.
(c) Engines meeting all the following
criteria are considered to be used solely
for competition:
(1) Neither the engine nor any vessels
containing the engine may be displayed
for sale in any public dealership or
otherwise offered for sale to the general
public.
(2) Sale of the vessel in which the
engine is installed must be limited to
professional racing teams, professional
racers, or other qualified racers. Keep
records documenting this, such as a
letter requesting an exempted engine.
(3) The engine and the vessel in
which it is installed must have
performance characteristics that are
substantially superior to noncompetitive
models.
(4) The engines are intended for use
only as specified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(d) You may ask us to approve an
exemption for engines not meeting the
applicable criteria listed in paragraph
(c) of this section as long as you have
clear and convincing evidence that the
engines will be used solely for
competition.
(e) Engines will not be considered to
be used solely for competition if they
are ever used for any recreational or
other noncompetitive purpose. This
means that their use must be limited to
competition events sanctioned by the
U.S. Coast Guard or another public
organization with authorizing permits
for participating competitors. Operation
for such engines may include only
PO 00000
Frm 00163
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16099
racing events or trials to qualify for
racing events. Authorized attempts to
set speed records (and the associated
official trials) are also considered racing
events. Any use of exempt engines in
recreational events, such as poker runs
and lobsterboat races, is a violation of
40 CFR 1068.101(b)(4).
(f) You must permanently label
engines exempted under this section to
clearly indicate that they are to be used
only for competition. Failure to properly
label an engine will void the exemption
for that engine.
(g) If we request it, you must provide
us any information we need to
determine whether the engines or
vessels are used solely for competition.
This would include documentation
regarding the number of engines and the
ultimate purchaser of each engine. Keep
these records for five years.
§ 1042.630
Personal-use exemption.
This section applies to individuals
who manufacture vessels for personal
use. If you and your vessel meet all the
conditions of this section, the vessel and
its engine are considered to be exempt
from the standards and requirements of
this part that apply to new engines and
new vessels. For example, you may
install an engine that was not certified
as a marine engine.
(a) The vessel may not be
manufactured from a previously
certified vessel, nor may it be
manufactured from a partially complete
vessel that is equivalent to a certified
vessel. The vessel must be
manufactured primarily from
unassembled components, but may
incorporate some preassembled
components. For example, fully
preassembled steering assemblies may
be used. You may also power the vessel
with an engine that was previously used
in a highway or land-based nonroad
application.
(b) The vessel may not be sold within
five years after the date of final
assembly.
(c) No individual may manufacture
more than one vessel in any ten-year
period under this exemption.
(d) You may not use the vessel in any
revenue-generating service or for any
other commercial purpose, except that
you may use a vessel exempt under this
section for commercial fishing that you
personally do.
(e) This exemption may not be used
to circumvent the requirements of this
part or the requirements of the Clean Air
Act. For example, this exemption would
not cover a case in which a person sells
an almost completely assembled vessel
to another person, who would then
complete the assembly. This would be
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16100
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
considered equivalent to the sale of the
complete new vessel. This section also
does not allow engine manufacturers to
produce new engines that are exempt
from emission standards and it does not
provide an exemption from the
prohibition against tampering with
certified engines.
(f) The vessel must be a vessel that is
not classed or subject to Coast Guard
inspections or surveys.
§ 1042.640
engines.
Special provisions for branded
The following provisions apply if you
identify the name and trademark of
another company instead of your own
on your emission control information
label, as provided by § 1042.135(c)(2):
(a) You must have a contractual
agreement with the other company that
obligates that company to take the
following steps:
(1) Meet the emission warranty
requirements that apply under
§ 1042.120. This may involve a separate
agreement involving reimbursement of
warranty-related expenses.
(2) Report all warranty-related
information to the certificate holder.
(b) In your application for
certification, identify the company
whose trademark you will use and
describe the arrangements you have
made to meet your requirements under
this section.
(c) You remain responsible for
meeting all the requirements of this
chapter, including warranty and defectreporting provisions.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Subpart H—Averaging, Banking, and
Trading for Certification
§ 1042.701
General provisions.
(a) You may average, bank, and trade
(ABT) emission credits for purposes of
certification as described in this subpart
to show compliance with the standards
of this part. Participation in this
program is voluntary.
(b) The definitions of subpart I of this
part apply to this subpart. The following
definitions also apply:
(1) Actual emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have verified by reviewing your
final report.
(2) Averaging set means a set of
engines in which emission credits may
be exchanged only with other engines in
the same averaging set.
(3) Broker means any entity that
facilitates a trade of emission credits
between a buyer and seller.
(4) Buyer means the entity that
receives emission credits as a result of
a trade.
(5) Reserved emission credits means
emission credits you have generated
that we have not yet verified by
reviewing your final report.
(6) Seller means the entity that
provides emission credits during a
trade.
(7) Standard means the emission
standard that applies under subpart B of
this part for engines not participating in
the ABT program of this subpart.
(8) Trade means to exchange emission
credits, either as a buyer or seller.
(c) Emission credits may be
exchanged only within an averaging set.
Except as specified in paragraph (d) of
this section, the following criteria define
the applicable averaging sets:
(1) Recreational engines.
(2) Commercial Category 1 engines.
(3) Category 2 engines.
(d) Emission credits generated by
recreational or commercial Category 1
engine families may be used for
compliance by Category 2 engine
families. Such credits must be
discounted by 25 percent.
(e) You may not use emission credits
generated under this subpart to offset
any emissions that exceed an FEL or
standard. This applies for all testing,
including certification testing, in-use
testing, selective enforcement audits,
and other production-line testing.
However, if emissions from an engine
exceed an FEL or standard (for example,
during a selective enforcement audit),
you may use emission credits to
recertify the engine family with a higher
FEL that applies only to future
production.
(f) Engine families that use emission
credits for one or more pollutants may
PO 00000
Frm 00164
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not generate positive emission credits
for another pollutant.
(g) Emission credits may be used in
the model year they are generated or in
future model years. Emission credits
may not be used for past model years.
(h) You may increase or decrease an
FEL during the model year by amending
your application for certification under
§ 1042.225.
(i) You may use NOX+HC credits to
show compliance with a NOX emission
standard or use NOX credits to show
compliance with a NOX+HC emission
standard.
§ 1042.705 Generating and calculating
emission credits.
The provisions of this section apply
separately for calculating emission
credits for NOX, NOX+HC, or PM.
(a) For each participating family,
calculate positive or negative emission
credits relative to the otherwise
applicable emission standard. Calculate
positive emission credits for a family
that has an FEL below the standard.
Calculate negative emission credits for a
family that has an FEL above the
standard. Sum your positive and
negative credits for the model year
before rounding. Round calculated
emission credits to the nearest kilogram
(kg), using consistent units throughout
the following equation:
Emission credits (kg) = (Std ¥ FEL) ×
(Volume) × (Power) × (LF) × (UL) ×
(10–3)
Where:
Std = The emission standard, in g/kW-hr.
FEL = The family emission limit for the
engine family, in g/kW-hr.
Volume = The number of engines eligible to
participate in the averaging, banking,
and trading program within the given
engine family during the model year, as
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
Power = The average value of maximum
engine power of all the engine
configurations within an engine family,
calculated on a production-weighted
basis, in kilowatts.
LF = Load factor. Use 0.69 for propulsion
marine engines and 0.51 for auxiliary
marine engines. We may specify a
different load factor if we approve the
use of special test procedures for an
engine family under 40 CFR
1065.10(c)(2), consistent with good
engineering judgment.
UL = The useful life for the given engine
family, in hours.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) In your application for
certification, base your showing of
compliance on projected production
volumes for engines whose point of first
retail sale is in the United States. As
described in § 1042.730, compliance
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
with the requirements of this subpart is
determined at the end of the model year
based on actual production volumes for
engines whose point of first retail sale
is in the United States. Do not include
any of the following engines to calculate
emission credits:
(1) Engines exempted under subpart G
of this part or under 40 CFR part 1068.
(2) Exported engines.
(3) Engines not subject to the
requirements of this part, such as those
excluded under § 1042.5.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Any other engines, where we
indicate elsewhere in this part 1042 that
they are not to be included in the
calculations of this subpart.
§ 1042.710
Averaging emission credits.
(a) Averaging is the exchange of
emission credits among your engine
families.
(b) You may certify one or more
engine families to an FEL above the
emission standard, subject to the FEL
caps and other provisions in subpart B
of this part, if you show in your
application for certification that your
projected balance of all emission-credit
transactions in that model year is greater
than or equal to zero.
(c) If you certify an engine family to
an FEL that exceeds the otherwise
applicable standard, you must obtain
enough emission credits to offset the
engine family’s deficit by the due date
for the final report required in
§ 1042.730. The emission credits used to
address the deficit may come from your
other engine families that generate
emission credits in the same model
year, from emission credits you have
banked, or from emission credits you
obtain through trading.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(d) Reserved credits become actual
emission credits only when we verify
them in reviewing your final report.
§ 1042.720
Trading emission credits.
(a) Trading is the exchange of
emission credits between
manufacturers. You may use traded
emission credits for averaging, banking,
or further trading transactions.
(b) You may trade actual emission
credits as described in this subpart. You
may also trade reserved emission
credits, but we may revoke these
emission credits based on our review of
your records or reports or those of the
company with which you traded
emission credits. You may trade banked
credits to any certifying manufacturer.
(c) If a negative emission credit
balance results from a transaction, both
the buyer and seller are liable, except in
cases we deem to involve fraud. See
§ 1042.255(e) for cases involving fraud.
We may void the certificates of all
engine families participating in a trade
that results in a manufacturer having a
negative balance of emission credits.
See § 1042.745.
§ 1042.725 Information required for the
application for certification.
(a) You must declare in your
application for certification your intent
to use the provisions of this subpart for
each engine family that will be certified
using the ABT program. You must also
declare the FELs you select for the
engine family for each pollutant for
which you are using the ABT program.
Your FELs must comply with the
specifications of subpart B of this part,
including the FEL caps. FELs must be
expressed to the same number of
decimal places as the emission
standards.
(b) Include the following in your
application for certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of
your belief, you will not have a negative
balance of emission credits for any
averaging set when all emission credits
are calculated at the end of the year.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected
emission credits (positive or negative)
based on projected production volumes.
If your engine family will generate
positive emission credits, state
specifically where the emission credits
will be applied (for example, to which
engine family they will be applied in
averaging, whether they will be traded,
or whether they will be reserved for
banking). If you have projected negative
emission credits for an engine family,
state the source of positive emission
credits to offset the negative emission
credits. Describe whether the emission
credits are actual or reserved and
PO 00000
Frm 00165
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16101
whether they will come from averaging,
banking, trading, or a combination of
these. Identify from which of your
engine families or from which
manufacturer the emission credits will
come.
§ 1042.730
ABT reports.
(a) If any of your engine families are
certified using the ABT provisions of
this subpart, you must send an end-ofyear report within 90 days after the end
of the model year and a final report
within 270 days after the end of the
model year. We may waive the
requirement to send the end-of year
report, as long as you send the final
report on time.
(b) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following information
for each engine family participating in
the ABT program:
(1) Engine-family designation.
(2) The emission standards that would
otherwise apply to the engine family.
(3) The FEL for each pollutant. If you
changed an FEL during the model year,
identify each FEL you used and
calculate the positive or negative
emission credits under each FEL. Also,
describe how the FEL can be identified
for each engine you produced. For
example, you might keep a list of engine
identification numbers that correspond
with certain FEL values.
(4) The projected and actual
production volumes for the model year
with a point of first retail sale in the
United States, as described in
§ 1042.705(c). If you changed an FEL
during the model year, identify the
actual production volume associated
with each FEL.
(5) Maximum engine power for each
engine configuration, and the
production-weighted average engine
power for the engine family.
(6) Useful life.
(7) Calculated positive or negative
emission credits for the whole engine
family. Identify any emission credits
that you traded, as described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(c) Your end-of-year and final reports
must include the following additional
information:
(1) Show that your net balance of
emission credits from all your
participating engine families in each
averaging set in the applicable model
year is not negative.
(2) State whether you will reserve any
emission credits for banking.
(3) State that the report’s contents are
accurate.
(d) If you trade emission credits, you
must send us a report within 90 days
after the transaction, as follows:
(1) Sellers must include the following
information in their report:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16102
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(i) The corporate names of the buyer
and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(iii) The engine families that
generated emission credits for the trade,
including the number of emission
credits from each family.
(2) Buyers must include the following
information in their report:
(i) The corporate names of the seller
and any brokers.
(ii) A copy of any contracts related to
the trade.
(iii) How you intend to use the
emission credits, including the number
of emission credits you intend to apply
to each engine family (if known).
(e) Send your reports electronically to
the Designated Compliance Officer
using an approved information format.
If you want to use a different format,
send us a written request with
justification for a waiver.
(f) Correct errors in your end-of-year
report or final report as follows:
(1) You may correct any errors in your
end-of-year report when you prepare the
final report, as long as you send us the
final report by the time it is due.
(2) If you or we determine within 270
days after the end of the model year that
errors mistakenly decrease your balance
of emission credits, you may correct the
errors and recalculate the balance of
emission credits. You may not make
these corrections for errors that are
determined more than 270 days after the
end of the model year. If you report a
negative balance of emission credits, we
may disallow corrections under this
paragraph (f)(2).
(3) If you or we determine anytime
that errors mistakenly increase your
balance of emission credits, you must
correct the errors and recalculate the
balance of emission credits.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1042.735
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
§ 1042.745
Jkt 211001
Noncompliance.
(a) For each engine family
participating in the ABT program, the
certificate of conformity is conditional
upon full compliance with the
provisions of this subpart during and
after the model year. You are
responsible to establish to our
satisfaction that you fully comply with
applicable requirements. We may void
the certificate of conformity for an
engine family if you fail to comply with
any provisions of this subpart.
(b) You may certify your engine
family to an FEL above an emission
standard based on a projection that you
will have enough emission credits to
offset the deficit for the engine family.
However, we may void the certificate of
conformity if you cannot show in your
final report that you have enough actual
emission credits to offset a deficit for
any pollutant in an engine family.
(c) We may void the certificate of
conformity for an engine family if you
fail to keep records, send reports, or give
us information we request.
(d) You may ask for a hearing if we
void your certificate under this section
(see § 1042.820).
Subpart I—Definitions and Other
Reference Information
§ 1042.801
Recordkeeping.
(a) You must organize and maintain
your records as described in this
section. We may review your records at
any time.
(b) Keep the records required by this
section for eight years after the due date
for the end-of-year report. You may not
use emission credits on any engines if
you do not keep all the records required
under this section. You must therefore
keep these records to continue to bank
valid credits. Store these records in any
format and on any media, as long as you
can promptly send us organized, written
records in English if we ask for them.
You must keep these records readily
available. We may review them at any
time.
(c) Keep a copy of the reports we
require in §§ 1042.725 and 1042.730.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
(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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00166
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
emissions without significantly
degrading engine performance, or if you
otherwise show us that it will not be
adjusted in a way that affects emissions
during in-use operation.
Aftertreatment means relating to a
catalytic converter, particulate filter, or
any other system, component, or
technology mounted downstream of the
exhaust valve (or exhaust port) whose
design function is to decrease emissions
in the engine exhaust before it is
exhausted to the environment. Exhaustgas recirculation (EGR) and
turbochargers are not aftertreatment.
Amphibious vehicle means a vehicle
with wheels or tracks that is designed
primarily for operation on land and
secondarily for operation in water.
Annex VI Technical Code means the
‘‘Technical Code on Control of Emission
of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel
Engines’’, adopted by the International
Maritime Organization (incorporated by
reference in § 1042.810).
Applicable emission standard or
applicable standard means an emission
standard to which an engine is subject;
or, where an engine has been or is being
certified to another standard or FEL,
applicable emission standards means
the FEL and other standards to which
the engine has been or is being certified.
This definition does not apply to
subpart H of this part.
Auxiliary emission control device
means any element of design that senses
temperature, motive speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, or any other
parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating
the operation of any part of the
emission-control system.
Base engine means a land-based
engine to be marinized, as configured
prior to marinization.
Brake power means the usable power
output of the engine, not including
power required to fuel, lubricate, or heat
the engine, circulate coolant to the
engine, or to operate aftertreatment
devices.
Calibration means the set of
specifications and tolerances specific to
a particular design, version, or
application of a component or assembly
capable of functionally describing its
operation over its working range.
Category 1 means relating to a marine
engine with specific engine
displacement less than 7.0 liters per
cylinder.
Category 2 means relating to a marine
engine with a specific engine
displacement greater than or equal to
7.0 liters per cylinder but less than 30.0
liters per cylinder.
Category 3 means relating to a marine
engine with a specific engine
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
displacement greater than or equal to
30.0 liters per cylinder.
Certification means relating to the
process of obtaining a certificate of
conformity for an engine family that
complies with the emission standards
and requirements in this part.
Certified emission level means the
highest deteriorated emission level in an
engine family for a given pollutant from
either transient or steady-state testing.
Clean Air Act means the Clean Air
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Commercial means relating to an
engine or vessel that is not a
recreational marine engine or a
recreational vessel.
Compression-ignition means relating
to a type of reciprocating, internalcombustion engine that is not a sparkignition engine.
Constant-speed engine means an
engine whose certification is limited to
constant-speed operation. Engines
whose constant-speed governor function
is removed or disabled are no longer
constant-speed engines.
Constant-speed operation has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Crankcase emissions means airborne
substances emitted to the atmosphere
from any part of the engine crankcase’s
ventilation or lubrication systems. The
crankcase is the housing for the
crankshaft and other related internal
parts.
Critical emission-related component
means any of the following components:
(1) Electronic control units,
aftertreatment devices, fuel-metering
components, EGR-system components,
crankcase-ventilation valves, all
components related to charge-air
compression and cooling, and all
sensors and actuators associated with
any of these components.
(2) Any other component whose
primary purpose is to reduce emissions.
Designated Compliance Officer means
the Manager, Heavy-Duty and Nonroad
Engine Group (6403–J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Designated Enforcement Officer
means the Director, Air Enforcement
Division (2242A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Deteriorated emission level means the
emission level that results from
applying the appropriate deterioration
factor to the official emission result of
the emission-data engine.
Deterioration factor means the
relationship between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point, expressed in one of
the following ways:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(1) For multiplicative deterioration
factors, the ratio of emissions at the end
of useful life to emissions at the lowhour test point.
(2) For additive deterioration factors,
the difference between emissions at the
end of useful life and emissions at the
low-hour test point.
Diesel fuel has the meaning given in
40 CFR 80.2. This generally includes
No. 1 and No. 2 petroleum diesel fuels
and biodiesel fuels.
Discrete-mode means relating to the
discrete-mode type of steady-state test
described in § 1042.505.
Dresser means any entity that
modifies a land-based engine for use in
a vessel, in compliance with the
provisions of § 1042.605. This means
that dressers may not modify the engine
in a way that would affect emissions.
Emission-control system means any
device, system, or element of design that
controls or reduces the emissions of
regulated pollutants from an engine.
Emission-data engine means an
engine that is tested for certification.
This includes engines tested to establish
deterioration factors.
Emission-related maintenance means
maintenance that substantially affects
emissions or is likely to substantially
affect emission deterioration.
Engine has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30. This includes complete
and partially complete engines.
Engine configuration means a unique
combination of engine hardware and
calibration within an engine family.
Engines within a single engine
configuration differ only with respect to
normal production variability.
Engine family has the meaning given
in § 1042.230.
Engine manufacturer means a
manufacturer of an engine. See the
definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ in this
section.
Engineering analysis means a
summary of scientific and/or
engineering principles and facts that
support a conclusion made by a
manufacturer, with respect to
compliance with the provisions of this
part.
Excluded means relating to an engine
that either:
(1) Has been determined not to be a
nonroad engine, as specified in 40 CFR
1068.30; or
(2) Is a nonroad engine that, according
to § 1042.5, is not subject to this part
1042.
Exempted has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1068.30.
Exhaust-gas recirculation means a
technology that reduces emissions by
routing exhaust gases that had been
exhausted from the combustion
PO 00000
Frm 00167
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16103
chamber(s) back into the engine to be
mixed with incoming air before or
during combustion. The use of valve
timing to increase the amount of
residual exhaust gas in the combustion
chamber(s) that is mixed with incoming
air before or during combustion is not
considered exhaust-gas recirculation for
the purposes of this part.
Family emission limit (FEL) means an
emission level declared by the
manufacturer to serve in place of an
otherwise applicable emission standard
under the ABT program in subpart H of
this part. The family emission limit
must be expressed to the same number
of decimal places as the emission
standard it replaces. The family
emission limit serves as the emission
standard for the engine family with
respect to all required testing.
Foreign vessel means a vessel of
foreign registry or a vessel operated
under the authority of a country other
than the United States.
Fuel system means all components
involved in transporting, metering, and
mixing the fuel from the fuel tank to the
combustion chamber(s), including the
fuel tank, fuel tank cap, fuel pump, fuel
filters, fuel lines, carburetor or fuelinjection components, and all fuelsystem vents.
Fuel type means a general category of
fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel,
residual fuel, or natural gas. There can
be multiple grades within a single fuel
type, such as high-sulfur or low-sulfur
diesel fuel.
Good engineering judgment has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. See
40 CFR 1068.5 for the administrative
process we use to evaluate good
engineering judgment.
Green Engine Factor means a factor
that is applied to emission
measurements from a Category 2 engine
that has had little or no service
accumulation. The Green Engine Factor
adjusts emission measurements to be
equivalent to emission measurements
from an engine that has had
approximately 300 hours of use.
High-sulfur diesel fuel means one of
the following:
(1) For in-use fuels, high-sulfur diesel
fuel means a diesel fuel with a
maximum sulfur concentration greater
than 500 parts per million.
(2) For testing, high-sulfur diesel fuel
has the meaning given in 40 CFR part
1065.
Hydrocarbon (HC) means the
hydrocarbon group on which the
emission standards are based for each
fuel type, as described in § 1042.101(d).
Identification number means a unique
specification (for example, a model
number/serial number combination)
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16104
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
that allows someone to distinguish a
particular engine from other similar
engines.
Low-hour means relating to an engine
that has stabilized emissions and
represents the undeteriorated emission
level. This would generally involve less
than 300 hours of operation.
Low-sulfur diesel fuel means one of
the following:
(1) For in-use fuels, low-sulfur diesel
fuel means a diesel fuel market as lowsulfur diesel fuel having a maximum
sulfur concentration of 500 parts per
million.
(2) For testing, low-sulfur diesel fuel
has the meaning given in 40 CFR part
1065.
Manufacture means the physical and
engineering process of designing,
constructing, and assembling an engine
or a vessel.
Manufacturer has the meaning given
in section 216(1) of the Clean Air Act.
In general, this term includes any
person who manufactures an engine or
vessel for sale in the United States or
otherwise introduces a new marine
engine into U.S. commerce. This
includes importers who import engines
or vessels for resale. It also includes
post-manufacture marinizers, but not
dealers. All manufacturing entities
under the control of the same person are
considered to be a single manufacturer.
Marine engine means a nonroad
engine that is installed or intended to be
installed on a marine vessel. This
includes a portable auxiliary marine
engine only if its fueling, cooling, or
exhaust system is an integral part of the
vessel. A fueling system is considered
integral to the vessel only if one or more
essential elements are permanently
affixed to the vessel. There are two
kinds of marine engines:
(1) Propulsion marine engine means a
marine engine that moves a vessel
through the water or directs the vessel’s
movement.
(2) Auxiliary marine engine means a
marine engine not used for propulsion.
Marine vessel has the meaning given
in 1 U.S.C. 3, except that it does not
include amphibious vehicles. The
definition in 1 U.S.C. 3 very broadly
includes every craft capable of being
used as a means of transportation on
water.
Maximum engine power has the
meaning given in § 1042.140.
Maximum test power means:
(1) For Category 1 engines, the power
output observed at the maximum test
speed with the maximum fueling rate
possible.
(2) For Category 2 engines, 90 percent
of the power output observed at the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
maximum test speed with the maximum
fueling rate possible.
Maximum test speed has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Maximum test torque has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Model year means one of the
following things:
(1) For freshly manufactured engines
(see definition of ‘‘new marine engine,’’
paragraph (1)), model year means one of
the following:
(i) Calendar year.
(ii) Your annual new model
production period if it is different than
the calendar year. This must include
January 1 of the calendar year for which
the model year is named. It may not
begin before January 2 of the previous
calendar year and it must end by
December 31 of the named calendar
year.
(2) For an engine that is converted to
a marine engine after originally being
placed into service as a motor-vehicle
engine, a nonroad engine that is not a
marine engine, or a stationary engine,
model year means the calendar year in
which the engine was converted (see
definition of ‘‘new marine engine,’’
paragraph (2)).
(3) For a marine engine excluded
under § 1042.5 that is later converted to
operate in an application that is not
excluded, model year means the
calendar year in which the engine was
converted (see definition of ‘‘new
marine engine,’’ paragraph (3)).
(4) For engines that are not freshly
manufactured but are installed in new
vessels, model year means the calendar
year in which the engine is installed in
the new vessel (see definition of ‘‘new
marine engine,’’paragraph (4)).
(5) For imported engines:
(i) For imported engines described in
paragraph (5)(i) of the definition of
‘‘new marine engine,’’ model year has
the meaning given in paragraphs (1)
through (4) of this definition.
(ii) For imported engines described in
paragraph (5)(ii) of the definition of new
marine engine,’’ model year means the
calendar year in which the engine is
modified.
(iii) For imported engines described
in paragraph (5)(iii) of the definition of
‘‘new marine engine,’’ model year
means the calendar year in which the
importation occurs.
(6) For freshly manufactured vessels,
model year means the calendar year in
which the keel is laid or the vessel is at
a similar stage of construction. For
vessels that become new as a result of
substantial modifications, model year
means the calendar year in which the
modifications physically begin.
PO 00000
Frm 00168
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Motor vehicle has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 85.1703(a).
New marine engine means any of the
following things:
(1) A freshly manufactured marine
engine for which the ultimate purchaser
has never received the equitable or legal
title. This kind of engine might
commonly be thought of as ‘‘brand
new.’’ In the case of this paragraph (1),
the engine is new from the time it is
produced until the ultimate purchaser
receives the title or the product is
placed into service, whichever comes
first.
(2) An engine intended to be installed
in a vessel that was originally
manufactured as a motor-vehicle engine,
a nonroad engine that is not a marine
engine, or a stationary engine. In this
case, the engine is no longer a motorvehicle, nonmarine, or stationary engine
and becomes a ‘‘new marine engine’’.
The engine is no longer new when it is
placed into marine service.
(3) A marine engine that has been
previously placed into service in an
application we exclude under § 1042.5,
where that engine is installed in a vessel
that is covered by this part 1042. The
engine is no longer new when it is
placed into marine service covered by
this part 1042. For example, this would
apply to a marine diesel engine that is
no longer used in a foreign vessel.
(4) An engine not covered by
paragraphs (1) through (3) of this
definition that is intended to be
installed in a new vessel. The engine is
no longer new when the ultimate
purchaser receives a title for the vessel
or it is placed into service, whichever
comes first. This generally includes
installation of used engines in new
vessels.
(5) An imported marine engine,
subject to the following provisions:
(i) An imported marine engine
covered by a certificate of conformity
issued under this part that meets the
criteria of one or more of paragraphs (1)
through (4) of this definition, where the
original engine manufacturer holds the
certificate, is new as defined by those
applicable paragraphs.
(ii) An imported marine engine
covered by a certificate of conformity
issued under this part, where someone
other than the original engine
manufacturer holds the certificate (such
as when the engine is modified after its
initial assembly), becomes new when it
is imported. It is no longer new when
the ultimate purchaser receives a title
for the engine or it is placed into
service, whichever comes first.
(iii) An imported marine engine that
is not covered by a certificate of
conformity issued under this part at the
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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
16105
engine) is generally prohibited by 40
CFR part 1068.
APPLICABILITY OF EMISSION STANDARDS FOR COMPRESSION-IGNITION MARINE ENGINES
Engine category and type
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
1 ...............................................
1 ...............................................
1, Recreational .........................
1, Recreational .........................
1, Recreational .........................
1, Commercial ..........................
1, Commercial ..........................
2 and 3 .....................................
Power (kW)
Per-cylinder displacement (L/cyl)
P < 19 ......................................................
19 ≤ P < 37 .............................................
P ≥ 37 ......................................................
All .............................................................
All .............................................................
P ≥ 37 ......................................................
All .............................................................
All .............................................................
All .............................................................
All .............................................................
disp. < 0.9 ................................................
0.9 ≤ disp. < 2.5 ......................................
disp. ≥ 2.5 ................................................
disp. < 0.9 ................................................
disp. ≥ 0.9 ................................................
disp. ≥ 5.0 ................................................
New vessel means any of the
following:
(1) A vessel for which the ultimate
purchaser has never received the
equitable or legal title. The vessel is no
longer new when the ultimate purchaser
receives this title or it is placed into
service, whichever comes first.
(2) For vessels with no Category 3
engines, a vessel that has been modified
such that the value of the modifications
exceeds 50 percent of the value of the
modified vessel. The value of the
modification is the difference in the
assessed value of the vessel before the
modification and the assessed value of
the vessel after the modification. The
vessel is no longer new when it is
placed into service. Use the following
equation to determine if the fractional
value of the modification exceeds 50
percent:
Percent of value = [(Value after
modification)¥(Value before
modification)÷100% (Value after
modification)
(3) For vessels with Category 3
engines, a vessel that has undergone a
modification that substantially alters the
dimensions or carrying capacity of the
vessel, changes the type of vessel, or
substantially prolongs the vessel’s life.
(4) An imported vessel that has
already been placed into service, where
it has an engine not covered by a
certificate of conformity issued under
this part at the time of importation that
was manufactured after the
requirements of this part start to apply
(see § 1042.1).
Noncompliant engine means an
engine that was originally covered by a
certificate of conformity but is not in the
certified configuration or otherwise does
not comply with the conditions of the
certificate.
Nonconforming engine means an
engine not covered by a certificate of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
conformity that would otherwise be
subject to emission standards.
Nonmethane hydrocarbon has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
This generally means the difference
between the emitted mass of total
hydrocarbons and the emitted mass of
methane.
Nonroad means relating to nonroad
engines, or vessels, or equipment that
include nonroad engines.
Nonroad engine has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1068.30. In general, this
means all internal-combustion engines
except motor vehicle engines, stationary
engines, engines used solely for
competition, or engines used in aircraft.
Official emission result means the
measured emission rate for an emissiondata engine on a given duty cycle before
the application of any deterioration
factor, but after the applicability of
regeneration adjustment factors.
Operator demand has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Owners manual means a document or
collection of documents prepared by the
engine manufacturer for the owner or
operator to describe appropriate engine
maintenance, applicable warranties, and
any other information related to
operating or keeping the engine. The
owners manual is typically provided to
the ultimate purchaser at the time of
sale. The owners manual may be in
paper or electronic format.
Oxides of nitrogen has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
Particulate trap means a filtering
device that is designed to physically
trap particulate matter above a certain
size.
Passenger has the meaning given by
46 U.S.C. 2101 (21) and (21a). In the
context of commercial vessels, this
generally means that a passenger is a
person that pays to be on the vessel.
Placed into service means put into
initial use for its intended purpose.
PO 00000
Frm 00169
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Initial model
year of emission standards
2000
1999
2007
2006
2004
2005
2004
2004
Point of first retail sale means the
location at which the initial retail sale
occurs. This generally means a vessel
dealership or manufacturing facility, but
may also include an engine seller or
distributor in cases where loose engines
are sold to the general public for uses
such as replacement engines.
Post-manufacture marinizer means an
entity that produces a marine engine by
modifying a non-marine engine,
whether certified or uncertified,
complete or partially complete, where
the entity is not controlled by the
manufacturer of the base engine or by an
entity that also controls the
manufacturer of the base engine. In
addition, vessel manufacturers that
substantially modify marine engines are
post-manufacture marinizers. For the
purpose of this definition,
‘‘substantially modify’’ means changing
an engine in a way that could change
engine emission characteristics.
Power density has the meaning given
in § 1042.140.
Ramped-modal means relating to the
ramped-modal type of steady-state test
described in § 1042.505.
Rated speed means the maximum
full-load governed speed for governed
engines and the speed of maximum
power for ungoverned engines.
Recreational marine engine means a
Category 1 propulsion marine engine
that is intended by the manufacturer to
be installed on a recreational vessel.
Recreational vessel has the meaning
given in 46 U.S.C. 2101 (25), but
excludes ‘‘passenger vessels’’ and
‘‘small passenger vessels’’ as defined by
46 U.S.C. 2101 (22) and (35) and
excludes vessels used solely for
competition. For this part, ‘‘recreational
vessel’’ generally means a vessel that is
intended by the vessel manufacturer to
be operated primarily for pleasure or
leased, rented or chartered to another
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16106
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
for the latter’s pleasure, excluding the
following vessels:
(1) Vessels of less than 100 gross tons
that carry more than 6 passengers (as
defined in this section).
(2) Vessels of 100 gross tons or more
that carry one or more passengers (as
defined in this section).
(3) Vessels used solely for
competition.
Residual fuel has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 80.2. This generally includes
all RM grades of marine fuel without
regard to whether they are known
commercially as residual fuel. For
example, fuel marketed as intermediate
fuel may be residual fuel.
Revoke has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30. In general this means to
terminate the certificate or an
exemption for an engine family.
Round has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1065.1001.
Scheduled maintenance means
adjusting, repairing, removing,
disassembling, cleaning, or replacing
components or systems periodically to
keep a part or system from failing,
malfunctioning, or wearing prematurely.
It also may mean actions you expect are
necessary to correct an overt indication
of failure or malfunction for which
periodic maintenance is not
appropriate.
Small-volume boat builder means a
boat manufacturer with fewer than 500
employees and with annual worldwide
production of fewer than 100 boats. For
manufacturers owned by a parent
company, these limits apply to the
combined production and number of
employees of the parent company and
all its subsidiaries.
Small-volume engine manufacturer
means a manufacturer with annual
worldwide production of fewer than
1,000 internal combustion engines
(marine and nonmarine). For
manufacturers owned by a parent
company, the limit applies to the
production of the parent company and
all its subsidiaries.
Spark-ignition means relating to a
gasoline-fueled engine or any other type
of engine with a spark plug (or other
sparking device) and with operating
characteristics significantly similar to
the theoretical Otto combustion cycle.
Spark-ignition engines usually use a
throttle to regulate intake air flow to
control power during normal operation.
Steady-state has the meaning given in
40 CFR 1065.1001.
Sulfur-sensitive technology means an
emission-control technology that
experiences a significant drop in
emission-control performance or
emission-system durability when an
engine is operated on low-sulfur fuel
(i.e., fuel with a sulfur concentration of
300 to 500 ppm) as compared to when
it is operated on ultra low-sulfur fuel
(i.e., fuel with a sulfur concentration
less than 15 ppm). Exhaust-gas
recirculation is not a sulfur-sensitive
technology.
Suspend has the meaning given in 40
CFR 1068.30. In general this means to
temporarily discontinue the certificate
or an exemption for an engine family.
Test engine means an engine in a test
sample.
Test sample means the collection of
engines selected from the population of
an engine family for emission testing.
This may include testing for
certification, production-line testing, or
in-use testing.
Tier 1 means relating to the Tier 1
emission standards, as shown in
Appendix I.
Tier 2 means relating to the Tier 2
emission standards, as shown in
Appendix I.
Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3
emission standards, as shown in
§ 1042.101.
Tier 4 means relating to the Tier 4
emission standards, as shown in
§ 1042.101.
Total hydrocarbon has the meaning
given in 40 CFR 1065.1001. This
generally means the combined mass of
organic compounds measured by the
specified procedure for measuring total
hydrocarbon, expressed as a
hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon
mass ratio of 1.85:1.
Total hydrocarbon equivalent has the
meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
This generally means the sum of the
carbon mass contributions of nonoxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols and
aldehydes, or other organic compounds
that are measured separately as
contained in a gas sample, expressed as
exhaust hydrocarbon from petroleumfueled locomotives. The hydrogen-tocarbon ratio of the equivalent
hydrocarbon is 1.85:1.
Ultimate purchaser means, with
respect to any new vessel or new marine
engine, the first person who in good
faith purchases such new vessel or new
marine engine for purposes other than
resale.
ABT ...........................................................................................................................
AECD ........................................................................................................................
CFR ...........................................................................................................................
CO .............................................................................................................................
CO2 ...........................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00170
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel means one
of the following:
(1) For in-use fuels, ultra low-sulfur
diesel fuel means a diesel fuel marketed
as ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel having a
maximum sulfur concentration of 15
parts per million.
(2) For testing, ultra low-sulfur diesel
fuel has the meaning given in 40 CFR
part 1065.
United States has the meaning given
in 40 CFR 1068.30.
Upcoming model year means for an
engine family the model year after the
one currently in production.
U.S.-directed production volume
means the number of engine units,
subject to the requirements of this part,
produced by a manufacturer for which
the manufacturer has a reasonable
assurance that sale was or will be made
to ultimate purchasers in the United
States.
Useful life means the period during
which the engine is designed to
properly function in terms of reliability
and fuel consumption, without being
remanufactured, specified as a number
of hours of operation or calendar years,
whichever comes first. It is the period
during which a new engine is required
to comply with all applicable emission
standards. See § 1042.101(e).
Variable-speed engine means an
engine that is not a constant-speed
engine.
Vessel means a marine vessel.
Vessel operator means any individual
that physically operates or maintains a
vessel or exercises managerial control
over the operation of the vessel.
Vessel owner means the individual or
company that holds legal title to a
vessel.
Void has the meaning given in 40 CFR
1068.30. In general this means to
invalidate a certificate or an exemption
both retroactively and prospectively.
Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel
other than diesel or biodiesel that is a
liquid at atmospheric pressure and has
a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0
pounds per square inch.
We (us, our) means the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency
and any authorized representatives.
§ 1042.805 Symbols, acronyms, and
abbreviations.
The following symbols, acronyms,
and abbreviations apply to this part:
Averaging, banking, and trading.
auxiliary-emission control device.
Code of Federal Regulations.
carbon monoxide.
carbon dioxide.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Cyl .............................................................................................................................
disp. ..........................................................................................................................
EPA ...........................................................................................................................
EGR ..........................................................................................................................
EPA ...........................................................................................................................
FEL ...........................................................................................................................
G ...............................................................................................................................
HC .............................................................................................................................
Hr ..............................................................................................................................
kPa ............................................................................................................................
kW .............................................................................................................................
L ................................................................................................................................
LTR ...........................................................................................................................
NARA ........................................................................................................................
NMHC .......................................................................................................................
NOX ...........................................................................................................................
NTE ...........................................................................................................................
PM .............................................................................................................................
RPM ..........................................................................................................................
SAE ...........................................................................................................................
SCR ..........................................................................................................................
THC ...........................................................................................................................
THCE ........................................................................................................................
ULSD ........................................................................................................................
U.S.C. .......................................................................................................................
§ 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: https://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 https://www.sae.org. Table 1
follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
cylinder.
displacement.
Environmental Protection Agency.
exhaust gas recirculation.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Family Emission Limit.
grams.
hydrocarbon.
hours.
kilopascals.
kilowatts.
liters.
Limited Testing Region.
National Archives and Records Administration.
nonmethane hydrocarbons.
oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO2).
not-to-exceed.
particulate matter.
revolutions per minute.
Society of Automotive Engineers.
selective catalytic reduction.
total hydrocarbon.
total hydrocarbon equivalent.
ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel.
United States Code.
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.
Part 1042
Document number and name
reference
(c) If you send us a second copy
without the confidential information,
SAE J1930, Electrical/Elecwe will assume it contains nothing
tronic Systems Diagnostic
confidential whenever we need to
Terms, Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, revised
release information from it.
May 1998 ..............................
1042.135
(d) If you send us information without
claiming it is confidential, we may make
(b) IMO material. Table 2 of this
it available to the public without further
section lists material from the
notice to you, as described in 40 CFR
International Maritime Organization
2.204.
that we have incorporated by reference.
The first column lists the number and
§ 1042.820 Hearings.
name of the material. The second
(a) You may request a hearing under
column lists the section of this part
certain circumstances, as described
where we reference it. Anyone may
elsewhere in this part. To do this, you
purchase copies of these materials from
the International Maritime Organization, must file a written request, including a
4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, description of your objection and any
United Kingdom or https://www.imo.org. supporting data, within 30 days after we
make a decision.
Table 3 follows:
(b) For a hearing you request under
TABLE 2 OF § 1042.810.—IMO
the provisions of this part, we will
MATERIALS
approve your request if we find that
your request raises a substantial factual
Part 1042
issue.
Document number and name
reference
(c) If we agree to hold a hearing, we
will use the procedures specified in 40
Resolution 2—Technical Code
on Control of Emission of NiCFR part 1068, subpart G.
TABLE 1 OF § 1042.810—SAE
MATERIALS
trogen Oxides from Marine
Diesel Engines, 1997.A ........
§ 1042.815
1042.801
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
16107
PO 00000
Frm 00171
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 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:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16108
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(a) We specify the following
requirements related to engine
certification in this part 1042:
(1) In § 1042.135 we require engine
manufacturers to keep certain records
related to duplicate labels sent to vessel
manufacturers.
(2) In § 1042.145 we state the
requirements for interim provisions.
(3) In subpart C of this part we
identify a wide range of information
required to certify engines.
(4) In §§ 1042.345 and 1042.350 we
specify certain records related to
production-line testing.
(5) In subpart G of this part we
identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making
demonstrations and getting approval
related to various special compliance
provisions.
(6) In §§ 1042.725, 1042.730, and
1042.735 we specify certain records
related to averaging, banking, and
trading.
(b) We specify the following
requirements related to testing in 40
CFR part 1065:
(1) In 40 CFR 1065.2 we give an
overview of principles for reporting
information.
(2) In 40 CFR 1065.10 and 1065.12 we
specify information needs for
establishing various changes to
published test procedures.
(3) In 40 CFR 1065.25 we establish
basic guidelines for storing test
information.
(4) In 40 CFR 1065.695 we identify
data that may be appropriate for
collecting during testing of in-use
engines using portable analyzers.
(c) We specify the following
requirements related to the general
compliance provisions in 40 CFR part
1068:
(1) In 40 CFR 1068.5 we establish a
process for evaluating good engineering
judgment related to testing and
certification.
(2) In 40 CFR 1068.25 we describe
general provisions related to sending
and keeping information.
(3) In 40 CFR 1068.27 we require
manufacturers to make engines available
for our testing or inspection if we make
such a request.
(4) In 40 CFR 1068.105 we require
vessel manufacturers to keep certain
records related to duplicate labels from
engine manufacturers.
(5) In 40 CFR 1068.120 we specify
recordkeeping related to rebuilding
engines.
(6) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart C, we
identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making
demonstrations and getting approval
related to various exemptions.
(7) In 40 CFR part 1068, subpart D, we
identify several reporting and
recordkeeping items for making
demonstrations and getting approval
related to importing engines.
(8) In 40 CFR 1068.450 and 1068.455
we specify certain records related to
testing production-line engines in a
selective enforcement audit.
(9) In 40 CFR 1068.501 we specify
certain records related to investigating
and reporting emission-related defects.
(10) In 40 CFR 1068.525 and 1068.530
we specify certain records related to
recalling nonconforming engines.
Appendix I to Part 1042—Summary of
Previous Emission Standards
The following standards apply to marine
compression-ignition engines produced
before the model years specified in § 1042.1:
(a) Engines below 37 kW. Tier 1 and Tier
2 standards for engines below 37 kW apply
as specified in 40 CFR part 89 and
summarized in the following table:
TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX I.—EMISSION STANDARDS FOR ENGINES BELOW 37 KW (G/KW-HR)
Rated power (kW)
Model
year1
Tier
kW<8 ........................................................................
8=kW<19 .................................................................
19=kW<37 ...............................................................
(b) Engines at or above 37 kW. Tier 1 and
Tier 2 standards for engines at or above 37
kW apply as specified in 40 CFR part 94 and
summarized as follows:
(1) Tier 1 standards. NOX emissions from
model year 2004 and later engines with
displacement of 2.5 or more liters per
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
1
2
1
2
1
2
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
cylinder may not exceed the following
values:
(i) 17.0 g/kW-hr when maximum test speed
is less than 130 rpm.
(ii) 45.0×N–0.20 when maximum test speed
is at least 130 but less than 2000 rpm, where
N is the maximum test speed of the engine
in revolutions per minute. Round the
NMHC
+ NOX
2000
2005
2000
2005
1999
2004
10.5
7.5
9.5
7.5
9.5
7.5
CO
PM
8.0
8.0
6.6
6.6
5.5
5.5
1.0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.8
0.6
calculated standard to the nearest 0.1 g/kWhr.
(ii) 9.8 g/kW-hr when maximum test speed
is 2000 rpm or more.
(2) Tier 2 primary standards. Exhaust
emissions may not exceed the values shown
in the following table:
TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX I.—PRIMARY TIER 2 EMISSION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL MARINE
ENGINES AT OR ABOVE 37 KW (G/KW-HR)
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Engine Size liters/cylinder, rated
power
Maximum engine power
disp. < 0.9 ...................................
0.9 = disp. < 1.2 .........................
1.2 = disp. < 2.5 .........................
2.5 = disp. < 5.0 .........................
5.0 = disp. < 15.0 .......................
15.0 = disp. < 20.0 .....................
15.0 = disp. < 20.0 .....................
20.0 = disp. < 25.0 .....................
25.0 = disp. < 30.0 .....................
power ≡ 37 kW ..........................
All ...............................................
All ...............................................
All ...............................................
All ...............................................
power < 3300 kW ......................
power ≡ 3300 kW ......................
All ...............................................
All ...............................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00172
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Fmt 4701
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Sfmt 4702
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
Model
year
THC+NOX
g/kW-hr
CO g/
kW-hr
PM g/
kW-hr
2005
2004
2004
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.8
8.7
9.8
9.8
11
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.27
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.5
03APP2
16109
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) Tier 2 supplemental standards. Not-toexceed emission standards apply for Tier 2
engines as specified in 40 CFR 94.8(e).
Appendix II to Part 1042—Steady-State Duty
Cycles
(a) Test commercial propulsion engines
with maximum engine power at or above 19
kW that are used with (or intended to be used
with) fixed-pitch propellers with one of the
Engine speed 1
E3 mode number
1
2
3
4
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................
1 Speed
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
maximum test
power
Maximum test
91%
80%
63%
Weighting factors
100
75
50
25
0.2
0.5
0.15
0.15
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
(seconds)
RMC mode
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
Steady-state .......................................
Transition ............................................
Steady-state .......................................
Transition ............................................
Steady-state .......................................
Transition ............................................
Steady-state .......................................
229
20
166
20
570
20
175
Engine speed 1 3
Power (percent) 2 3
Maximum test speed ...............................
Linear transition .......................................
63% .........................................................
Linear transition .......................................
91% .........................................................
Linear transition .......................................
80% .........................................................
100%.
Linear transition in torque.
25%.
Linear transition in torque.
75%.
Linear transition in torque.
50%.
1 Speed
terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed is relative to maximum test speed.
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.
2 The
(b) Test recreational engines that are used
with (or intended to be used with) fixedpitch propellers with maximum engine
power at or above 19 kW with one of the
following steady-state duty cycles:
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
1 Speed
Percent of
maximum test
power
Engine speed 1
E5 mode number
1
2
3
4
5
(1) The following duty cycle applies for
discrete-mode testing:
Maximum test ..............................................................
91% .............................................................................
80% .............................................................................
63% .............................................................................
Idle ...............................................................................
Weighting factors
100
75
50
25
0
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
(seconds)
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
RMC mode
1a Steady-state ......................................
1b Transition ...........................................
2a Steady-state ......................................
2b Transition ...........................................
3a Steady-state ......................................
3b Transition ...........................................
4a Steady-state ......................................
4b Transition ...........................................
5a Steady-state ......................................
5b Transition ...........................................
6 Steady-state ........................................
167
20
85
20
354
20
141
20
182
20
171
Power
(percent) 2 3
Engine speed 1 3
Warm Idle .................................................
Linear transition ........................................
Maximum test speed ................................
Linear transition ........................................
63% ...........................................................
Linear transition ........................................
91% ...........................................................
Linear transition ........................................
80% ...........................................................
Linear transition ........................................
Warm Idle .................................................
0.
Linear transition
100%.
Linear transition
25%.
Linear transition
75%.
Linear transition
50%.
Linear transition
0.
1 Speed
2 The
terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. Percent speed is relative to maximum test speed.
percent power is relative to the maximum test power.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00173
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
in torque.
in torque.
in torque.
in torque.
in torque.
0.08
0.13
0.17
0.32
0.3
16110
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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:
E2 mode number
1
2
3
4
(1) The following duty cycle applies for
discrete-mode testing:
Observed
torque
(percent) 2
Engine speed 1
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
.......................................................................................
Engine
Engine
Engine
Engine
Governed
Governed
Governed
Governed
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
100
75
50
25
Weighting
factors
0.2
0.5
0.15
0.15
1 Speed
2 The
terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
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
(seconds)
RMC mode
1a
1b
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
Steady-state .....................................
Transition .........................................
Steady-state .....................................
Transition .........................................
Steady-state .....................................
Transition .........................................
Steady-state .....................................
234
20
571
20
165
20
170
Torque
(percent) 1 2
Engine speed
Engine
Engine
Engine
Engine
Engine
Engine
Engine
Governed
Governed
Governed
Governed
Governed
Governed
Governed
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
100%.
Linear transition.
25%.
Linear transition.
75%.
Linear transition.
50%.
1 The
percent torque is relative to the maximum test torque as defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
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.
2 Advance
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Appendix III to Part 1042—Not-to-Exceed
Zones
(a) The following Figure 1 illustrates the
default NTE zone for commercial marine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
engines certified using the duty cycle
specified in § 1042.505(b)(1):
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00174
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
(1) Subzone 1 is defined as follows, where
percent power is equal to the percentage of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the maximum power achieved at Maximum
PO 00000
Frm 00175
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Test Speed and percent speed is the
percentage of Maximum Test Speed:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16111
EP03AP07.007
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16112
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent
speed)∧2.5, and
(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/
0.9)∧3.5, and
(iii) Percent power > 3.0. × (100% ¥
percent speed).
(2) Sub zone 2 is defined as follows, where
percent power is equal to the percentage of
the maximum power achieved at Maximum
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
Test Speed and percent speed is the
percentage of Maximum Test Speed:
(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent
speed)∧2.5, and
(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/
0.9)∧3.5, and
(iii) Percent power > 3.0. × (100% ¥
percent speed), and
PO 00000
Frm 00176
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
(1) Sub zone 1 is defined as follows, where
percent power is equal to the percentage of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the maximum power achieved at Maximum
PO 00000
Frm 00177
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Test Speed and percent speed is the
percentage of Maximum Test Speed:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16113
EP03AP07.008
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16114
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent
speed)∧2.5, and
(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/
0.9)∧3.5, and
(iii) Percent power > 3.0 × (100% ¥
percent speed).
(iv) Percent power < 95% of the maximum
power at Maximum Text Speed.
(2) Sub zone 2 is defined as follows, where
percent power is equal to the percentage of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
the maximum power achieved at Maximum
Test Speed and percent speed is the
percentage of Maximum Test Speed:
(i) Percent power > 0.7 × (percent
speed)∧2.5, and
(ii) Percent power < (percent speed/
0.9)∧3.5, and
(iii) Percent power < 3.0 × (100% ¥
percent speed), and
PO 00000
Frm 00178
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iv) Percent speed > 70% of Maximum Test
Speed.
(v) Any power > 95% of the maximum
power at Maximum Test Speed
(c) The following Figure 3 illustrates the
default NTE zone for constant speed engines
certified using either the duty cycle specified
in § 1042.505(b)(3)(I) or in § 1042.505(b)(4)(i):
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
(1) Subzone 1 is defined in § 1039.101(e).
(2) Subzone 2 is defined in § 1039.515(b).
(d) The following Figure 4 illustrates the
default NTE zone for variable speed and load
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
engines certified using either the duty cycle
specified in § 1042.505(b)(3)(ii) or in
PO 00000
Frm 00179
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16115
§ 1042.505(b)(4)(ii):
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.009
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00180
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.010
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16116
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
(1) Subzone 1 is defined in § 1039.101(e).
(2) Subzone 2 is defined in § 1039.515(b).
PART 1065—ENGINE-TESTING
PROCEDURES
14. The authority citation for part
1065 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
Subpart A—[Amended]
15. Section 1065.1 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1065.1
Applicability.
(a) This part describes the procedures
that apply to testing we require for the
following engines or for vehicles using
the following engines:
(1) Locomotives we regulate under 40
CFR part 1033. For earlier model years,
manufacturers may use the test
procedures in this part or those
specified in 40 CFR part 92 according to
§ 1065.10.
(2) Model year 2010 and later heavyduty highway engines we regulate under
40 CFR part 86. For earlier model years,
manufacturers may use the test
procedures in this part or those
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N,
according to § 1065.10.
(3) Nonroad diesel engines we
regulate under 40 CFR part 1039 and
stationary diesel engines that are
certified to the standards in 40 CFR part
1039 as specified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart IIII. For earlier model years,
manufacturers may use the test
procedures in this part or those
specified in 40 CFR part 89 according to
§ 1065.10.
(4) Marine diesel engines we regulate
under 40 CFR part 1042. For earlier
model years, manufacturers may use the
test procedures in this part or those
specified in 40 CFR part 94 according to
§ 1065.10.
(5) Marine spark-ignition engines we
regulate under 40 CFR part 1045. For
earlier model years, manufacturers may
use the test procedures in this part or
those specified in 40 CFR part 91
according to § 1065.10.
(6) Large nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1048, and stationary engines that are
certified to the standards in 40 CFR part
1048 as specified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ.
(7) Vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR
part 1051 (such as snowmobiles and offhighway motorcycles) based on engine
testing. See 40 CFR part 1051, subpart
F, for standards and procedures that are
based on vehicle testing.
(8) Small nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
1054 and stationary engines that are
certified to the standards in 40 CFR part
1054 as specified in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart JJJJ. For earlier model years,
manufacturers may use the test
procedures in this part or those
specified in 40 CFR part 90 according to
§ 1065.10.
(b) The procedures of this part may
apply to other types of engines, as
described in this part and in the
standard-setting part.
(c) This part is addressed to you as a
manufacturer of engines, vehicles,
equipment, and vessels, but it applies
equally to anyone who does testing for
you. For example, if you manufacture
engines that must be tested according to
this part, this part applies to you. This
part is also addressed to any
manufacturer or supplier of test
equipment, instruments, supplies, or
any other goods or services related to
the procedures, requirements,
recommendations, or options in this
part. For example, if you are an
instrument manufacturer, this part
applies to you.
(d) Paragraph (a) of this section
identifies the parts of the CFR that
define emission standards and other
requirements for particular types of
engines. In this part, we refer to each of
these other parts generically as the
‘‘standard-setting part.’’ For example, 40
CFR part 1051 is always the standardsetting part for snowmobiles.
(e) Unless we specify otherwise, the
terms ‘‘procedures’’ and ‘‘test
procedures’’ in this part include all
aspects of engine testing, including the
equipment specifications, calibrations,
calculations, and other protocols and
procedural specifications needed to
measure emissions.
(f) For vehicles, equipment, or vessels
subject to this part and regulated under
vehicle-based, equipment-based, or
vessel-based standards, use good
engineering judgment to interpret the
term ’’engine’’ in this part to include
vehicles, equipment, or vessels, where
appropriate.
(g) For additional information
regarding these test procedures, visit our
Web site at https://www.epa.gov, and in
particular https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
testingregs.htm.
16. Section 1065.2 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1065.2 Submitting information to EPA
under this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) We may void any certificates or
approvals associated with a submission
of information if we find that you
intentionally submitted false,
incomplete, or misleading information.
PO 00000
Frm 00181
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16117
For example, if we find that you
intentionally submitted incomplete
information to mislead EPA when
requesting approval to use alternate test
procedures, we may void the certificates
for all engines families certified based
on emission data collected using the
alternate procedures. This would also
apply if you ignore data from
incomplete tests or from repeat tests
with higher emission results.
*
*
*
*
*
17. Section 1065.5 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.5 Overview of this part 1065 and its
relationship to the standard-setting part.
(a) This part specifies procedures that
apply generally to testing various
categories of engines. See the standardsetting part for directions in applying
specific provisions in this part for a
particular type of engine. Before using
this part’s procedures, read the
standard-setting part to answer at least
the following questions:
(1) What duty cycles must I use for
laboratory testing?
(2) Should I warm up the test engine
before measuring emissions, or do I
need to measure cold-start emissions
during a warm-up segment of the duty
cycle?
(3) Which exhaust gases do I need to
measure?
(4) Do any unique specifications
apply for test fuels?
(5) What maintenance steps may I
take before or between tests on an
emission-data engine?
(6) Do any unique requirements apply
to stabilizing emission levels on a new
engine?
(7) Do any unique requirements apply
to test limits, such as ambient
temperatures or pressures?
(8) Is field testing required or allowed,
and are there different emission
standards or procedures that apply to
field testing?
(9) Are there any emission standards
specified at particular engine-operating
conditions or ambient conditions?
(10) Do any unique requirements
apply for durability testing?
(b) The testing specifications in the
standard-setting part may differ from the
specifications in this part. In cases
where it is not possible to comply with
both the standard-setting part and this
part, you must comply with the
specifications in the standard-setting
part. The standard-setting part may also
allow you to deviate from the
procedures of this part for other reasons.
(c) The following table shows how
this part divides testing specifications
into subparts:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16118
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.5—DESCRIPTION
OF PART 1065 SUBPARTS
This subpart
Describes these specifications or procedures
Subpart A .......
Applicability and general provisions.
Equipment for testing.
Measurement instruments
for testing.
Calibration and performance
verifications for measurement systems.
How to prepare engines for
testing, including service
accumulation.
How to run an emission test
over a predetermined duty
cycle.
Test procedure calculations.
Fuels, engine fluids, analytical gases, and other calibration standards.
Special procedures related
to oxygenated fuels.
How to test with portable
emission measurement
systems (PEMS).
Subpart B .......
Subpart C .......
Subpart D .......
Subpart E .......
Subpart F .......
Subpart G ......
Subpart H .......
Subpart I ........
Subpart J .......
18. Section 1065.10 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory
text and (c)(7) introductory text to read
as follows:
§ 1065.10
Other procedures.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) The objective of the procedures in
this part is to produce emission
measurements equivalent to those that
would result from measuring emissions
during in-use operation using the same
engine configuration as installed in a
vehicle, equipment, or vessel. However,
in unusual circumstances these
procedures may result in measurements
that do not represent in-use operation.
You must notify us if good engineering
judgment indicates that the specified
procedures cause unrepresentative
emission measurements for your
engines. Note that you need not notify
us of unrepresentative aspects of the test
procedure if measured emissions are
equivalent to in-use emissions. This
provision does not obligate you to
pursue new information regarding the
different ways your engine might
operate in use, nor does it obligate you
to collect any other in-use information
to verify whether or not these test
procedures are representative of your
engine’s in-use operation. If you notify
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
us of unrepresentative procedures under
this paragraph (c)(1), we will cooperate
with you to establish whether and how
the procedures should be appropriately
changed to result in more representative
measurements. While the provisions of
this paragraph (c)(1) allow us to be
responsive to issues as they arise, we
would generally work toward making
these testing changes generally
applicable through rulemaking. We will
allow reasonable lead time for
compliance with any resulting change
in procedures. We will consider the
following factors in determining the
importance of pursuing changes to the
procedures:
*
*
*
*
*
(7) You may request to use alternate
procedures, or procedures that are more
accurate or more precise than the
allowed procedures. The following
provisions apply to requests for
alternate procedures:
*
*
*
*
*
19. Section 1065.12 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.12 Approval of alternate
procedures.
(a) To get approval for an alternate
procedure under § 1065.10(c), send the
Designated Compliance Officer an
initial written request describing the
alternate procedure and why you
believe it is equivalent to the specified
procedure. Anyone may request
alternate procedure approval. This
means that an individual engine
manufacturer may request to use an
alternate procedure. This also means
that an instrument manufacturer may
request to have an instrument,
equipment, or procedure approved as an
alternate procedure to those specified in
this part. We may approve your request
based on this information alone, or, as
described in this section, we may ask
you to submit to us in writing
supplemental information showing that
your alternate procedure is consistently
and reliably at least as accurate and
repeatable as the specified procedure.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Theoretical basis. Give a brief
technical description explaining why
you believe the proposed alternate
procedure should result in emission
measurements equivalent to those using
the specified procedure. You may
PO 00000
Frm 00182
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
include equations, figures, and
references. You should consider the full
range of parameters that may affect
equivalence. For example, for a request
to use a different NOX measurement
procedure, you should theoretically
relate the alternate detection principle
to the specified detection principle over
the expected concentration ranges for
NO, NO2, and interference gases. For a
request to use a different PM
measurement procedure, you should
explain the principles by which the
alternate procedure quantifies
particulate mass similarly to the
specified procedures.
*
*
*
*
*
20. Section 1065.15 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (e) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.15 Overview of procedures for
laboratory and field testing.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Engine operation. Engine
operation is specified over a test
interval. A test interval is the time over
which an engine’s total mass of
emissions and its total work are
determined. Refer to the standardsetting part for the specific test intervals
that apply to each engine. Testing may
involve measuring emissions and work
during the following types of engine
operation:
(i) Laboratory testing. Under this type
of testing, you determine brake-specific
emissions for duty-cycle testing by
using an engine dynamometer in a
laboratory or other environment. This
typically consists of one or more test
intervals, each defined by a duty cycle,
which is a sequence of modes, speeds,
and/or torques that an engine must
follow. If the standard-setting part
allows it, you may also simulate field
testing by running on an engine
dynamometer in a laboratory or other
environment.
(ii) Field testing. This type of testing
consists of normal in-use engine
operation while an engine is installed in
a vehicle, equipment, or vessel. The
standard-setting part specifies how test
intervals are defined for field testing.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The following figure illustrates the
allowed measurement configurations
described in this part 1065:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00183
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16119
EP03AP07.011
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16120
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Subpart B—[Amended]
21. Section 1065.20 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as
follows:
22. Section 1065.101 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1065.20 Units of measure and overview
of calculations.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret a
range as a tolerance unless we explicitly
identify it as an accuracy, repeatability,
linearity, or noise specification. See
§ 1065.1001 for the definition of
tolerance. In this part, we specify two
types of ranges:
(1) Whenever we specify a range by a
single value and corresponding limit
values above and below that value,
target any associated control point to
that single value. Examples of this type
of range include ‘‘±10% of maximum
pressure’’, or ‘‘(30 ± 10) kPa’’.
(2) Whenever we specify a range by
the interval between two values, you
may target any associated control point
to any value within that range. An
example of this type of range is ‘‘(40 to
50) kPa’’.
(g) Scaling of specifications with
respect to an applicable standard.
Because this part 1065 is applicable to
a wide range of engines and emission
standards, some of the specifications in
this part are scaled with respect to an
engine’s applicable standard or
maximum power. This ensures that the
specification will be adequate to
determine compliance, but not overly
burdensome by requiring unnecessarily
high-precision equipment. Many of
these specifications are given with
respect to a ‘‘flow-weighted mean’’ that
is expected at the standard or during
testing. Flow-weighted mean is the
mean of a quantity after it is weighted
proportional to a corresponding flow
rate. For example, if a gas concentration
is measured continuously from the raw
exhaust of an engine, its flow-weighted
mean concentration is the sum of the
products of each recorded concentration
times its respective exhaust flow rate,
divided by the sum of the recorded flow
rates. As another example, the bag
concentration from a CVS system is the
same as the flow-weighted mean
concentration, because the CVS system
itself flow-weights the bag
concentration. Refer to § 1065.602 for
information needed to estimate and
calculate flow-weighted means.
Wherever a specification is scaled to a
value based upon an applicable
standard, interpret the standard to be
the family emission limit if the engine
is certified under an emission credit
program in the standard-setting part.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 1065.101
Overview.
(a) This subpart specifies equipment,
other than measurement instruments,
related to emission testing. The
provisions of this subpart apply for all
testing in laboratories or other
environments where engine speeds and
loads are controlled to follow a
prescribed duty cycle. See subpart J of
this part to determine which of the
provisions of this subpart apply for field
testing. This equipment includes three
broad categories—dynamometers,
engine fluid systems (such as fuel and
intake-air systems), and emissionsampling hardware.
*
*
*
*
*
23. Section 1065.110 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (e) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.110 Work inputs and outputs,
accessory work, and operator demand.
(a) Work. Use good engineering
judgment to simulate all engine work
inputs and outputs as they typically
would operate in use. Account for work
inputs and outputs during an emission
test by measuring them; or, if they are
small, you may show by engineering
analysis that disregarding them does not
affect your ability to determine the net
work output by more than ±0.5% of the
net expected work output over the test
interval. Use equipment to simulate the
specific types of work, as follows:
(1) Shaft work. Use an engine
dynamometer that is able to meet the
cycle-validation criteria in § 1065.514
over each applicable duty cycle.
(i) You may use eddy-current and
water-brake dynamometers for any
testing that does not involve engine
motoring, which is identified by
negative torque commands in a
reference duty cycle. See the standard
setting part for reference duty cycles
that are applicable to your engine.
(ii) You may use alternating-current or
direct-current motoring dynamometers
for any type of testing.
(iii) You may use one or more
dynamometers.
(iv) You may use any device that is
already installed on a vehicle,
equipment, or vessel to absorb work
from the engine’s output shaft(s).
Examples of these types of devices
include a vessel’s propeller and a
locomotive’s generator.
(2) Electrical work. Use one or more
of the following to simulate electrical
work:
PO 00000
Frm 00184
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Use storage batteries or capacitors
that are of the type and capacity
installed in use.
(ii) Use motors, generators, and
alternators that are of the type and
capacity installed in use.
(iii) Use a resistor load bank to
simulate electrical loads.
(3) Pump, compressor, and turbine
work. Use pumps, compressors, and
turbines that are of the type and
capacity installed in use. Use working
fluids that are of the same type and
thermodynamic state as normal in-use
operation.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Operator demand for shaft work.
Operator demand is defined in
§ 1065.1001. Command the operator
demand and the dynamometer(s) to
follow a prescribed duty cycle with set
points for engine speed and torque at 5
Hz (or more frequently) for transient
testing or 1 Hz (or more frequently) for
steady-state testing. Refer to the
standard-setting part to determine the
specifications for your duty cycle(s).
Use a mechanical or electronic input to
control operator demand such that the
engine is able to meet the validation
criteria in § 1065.514 over each
applicable duty cycle. Record feedback
values for engine speed and torque at 5
Hz or more frequently for evaluating
performance relative to the cycle
validation criteria. Using good
engineering judgment, you may improve
control of operator demand by altering
on-engine speed and torque controls.
However, if these changes result in
unrepresentative testing, you must
notify us and recommend other test
procedures under § 1065.10(c)(1).
24. Section 1065.120 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1065.120 Fuel properties and fuel
temperature and pressure.
(a) Use fuels as specified in the
standard-setting part, or as specified in
subpart H of this part if fuels are not
specified in the standard-setting part.
*
*
*
*
*
25. Section 1065.122 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 1065.122
Engine cooling and lubrication.
(a) Engine cooling. Cool the engine
during testing so its intake-air, oil,
coolant, block, and head temperatures
are within their expected ranges for
normal operation. You may use
auxiliary coolers and fans.
(1) For air-cooled engines only, if you
use auxiliary fans you must account for
work input to the fan(s) according to
§ 1065.110.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
26. Section 1065.125 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1065.125
Engine intake air.
(a) Use the intake-air system installed
on the engine or one that represents a
typical in-use configuration. This
includes the charge-air cooling and
exhaust gas recirculation systems.
(b) Measure temperature, humidity,
and atmospheric pressure near the
entrance to the engine’s air filter, or at
the inlet to the air intake system for
engines that have no air filter. You may
use a shared atmospheric pressure meter
as long as your equipment for handling
intake air maintains ambient pressure
where you test the engine within ±1 kPa
of the shared atmospheric pressure. You
may use a shared humidity
measurement for intake air as long as
your equipment for handling intake air
maintains dewpoint where you test the
engine to within ±0.5 °C of the shared
humidity measurement.
(c) Unless stated otherwise in the
standard-setting part, maintain the
temperature of intake air to (25 ± 5) °C,
as measured upstream of any engine
component.
(d) Use an intake-air restriction that
represents production engines. Make
sure the intake-air restriction is between
the manufacturer’s specified maximum
for a clean filter and the manufacturer’s
specified maximum allowed. Measure
the static differential pressure of the
restriction at the location and at the
speed and torque set points specified by
the manufacturer. If the manufacturer
does not specify a location, measure this
pressure upstream of any turbocharger
or exhaust gas recirculation system
connection to the intake air system. If
the manufacturer does not specify speed
and torque points, measure this pressure
while the engine outputs maximum
power. As the manufacturer, you are
liable for emission compliance for all
values up to the maximum restriction
you specify for a particular engine. (e)
This paragraph (e) includes provisions
for simulating charge-air cooling in the
laboratory. This approach is described
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
Limits on using this approach are
described in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of
this section.
(1) Use a charge-air cooling system
with a total intake-air capacity that
represents production engines’ in-use
installation. Design any laboratory
charge-air cooling system to minimize
accumulation of condensate. Drain any
accumulated condensate before
emission testing. Modulate any
condensate drain during an emission
test as it would normally operate in use.
Maintain coolant conditions as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(i) Maintain a coolant temperature of
at least 20 °C at the inlet to the chargeair cooler throughout testing.
(ii) At the engine conditions specified
by the manufacturer, set the coolant
flow rate to achieve an air temperature
within ±5 °C of the value specified by
the manufacturer at the charge-air
cooler’s outlet. Measure the air-outlet
temperature at the location specified by
the manufacturer. Use this coolant flow
rate set point throughout testing. If the
engine manufacturer does not specify
engine conditions or the corresponding
charge-air cooler air outlet temperature,
set the coolant flow rate at maximum
engine power to achieve a charge-air
cooler air outlet temperature that
represents in-use operation.
(iii) If the engine manufacturer
specifies pressure-drop limits across the
charge-air cooling system, ensure that
the pressure drop across the charge-air
cooling system at engine conditions
specified by the manufacturer is within
the manufacturer’s specified limit(s).
Measure the pressure drop at the
manufacturer’s specified locations.
(2) The objective of this section is to
produce emission results that are
representative of in-use operation. If
good engineering judgment indicates
that the specifications in this section
would result in unrepresentative testing
(such as overcooling of the intake air),
you may use more sophisticated
setpoints and controls of charge-air
pressure drop, coolant temperature, and
flowrate to achieve more representative
results.
(3) This approach does not apply for
field testing. You may not correct
measured emission levels from field
testing to account for any differences
caused by the simulated cooling in the
laboratory.
27. Section 1065.130 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.130
Engine exhaust.
(a) General. Use the exhaust system
installed with the engine or one that
represents a typical in-use
configuration. This includes any
applicable aftertreatment devices.
(b) Aftertreatment configuration. If
you do not use the exhaust system
installed with the engine, configure any
aftertreatment devices as follows:
(1) Position any aftertreatment device
so its distance from the nearest exhaust
manifold flange or turbocharger outlet is
within the range specified by the engine
manufacturer in the application for
certification. If this distance is not
specified, position aftertreatment
devices to represent typical in-use
vehicle configurations.
PO 00000
Frm 00185
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16121
(2) You may use laboratory exhaust
tubing upstream of any aftertreatment
device that is of diameter(s) typical of
in-use configurations. If you use
laboratory exhaust tubing upstream of
any aftertreatment device, position each
aftertreatment device according to
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) Sampling system connections.
Connect an engine’s exhaust system to
any raw sampling location or dilution
stage, as follows:
(1) Minimize laboratory exhaust
tubing lengths and use a total length of
laboratory tubing of no more than 10 m
or 50 outside diameters, whichever is
greater. If laboratory exhaust tubing
consists of several different outside
tubing diameters, count the number of
diameters of length of each individual
diameter, then sum all the diameters to
determine the total length of exhaust
tubing in diameters. Use the mean
outside diameter of any converging or
diverging sections of tubing. Use outside
hydraulic diameters of any noncircular
sections.
(2) You may install short sections of
flexible laboratory exhaust tubing at any
location in the engine or laboratory
exhaust systems. You may use up to a
combined total of 2 m or 10 outside
diameters of flexible exhaust tubing.
(3) Insulate any laboratory exhaust
tubing downstream of the first 25
outside diameters of length.
(4) Use laboratory exhaust tubing
materials that are smooth-walled,
electrically conductive, and not reactive
with exhaust constituents. Stainless
steel is an acceptable material.
(5) We recommend that you use
laboratory exhaust tubing that has either
a wall thickness of less than 2 mm or
is air gap-insulated to minimize
temperature differences between the
wall and the exhaust.
(6) We recommend that you connect
multiple exhaust stacks from a single
engine into one stack upstream of any
emission sampling. To ensure mixing of
the multiple exhaust streams before
emission sampling, you may configure
the exhaust system with turbulence
generators, such as orifice plates or fins,
to achieve good mixing. We recommend
a minimum Reynolds number, Re#, of
4000 for the combined exhaust stream,
where Re# is based on the inside
diameter of the single stack. Re# is
defined in § 1065.640.
(d) In-line instruments. You may
insert instruments into the laboratory
exhaust tubing, such as an in-line smoke
meter. If you do this, you may leave a
length of up to 5 outside diameters of
laboratory exhaust tubing uninsulated
on each side of each instrument, but you
must leave a length of no more than 25
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16122
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
outside diameters of laboratory exhaust
tubing uninsulated in total, including
any lengths adjacent to in-line
instruments.
(e) Leaks. Minimize leaks sufficiently
to ensure your ability to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable
standards. We recommend performing a
chemical balance of fuel, intake air, and
exhaust according to § 1065.655 to
verify exhaust system integrity.
(f) Grounding. Electrically ground the
entire exhaust system.
(g) Forced cooldown. You may install
a forced cooldown system for an
exhaust aftertreatment device according
to § 1065.530(a)(1)(i).
(h) Exhaust restriction. As the
manufacturer, you are liable for
emission compliance for all values up to
the maximum restriction(s) you specify
for a particular engine. Measure and set
exhaust restriction(s) at the location(s)
and at the speed, torque and
aftertreatment set points specified by
the manufacturer. If the manufacturer
does not specify any location, measure
this pressure downstream of any
turbocharger or exhaust gas
recirculation system connection to the
exhaust system. If the manufacturer
does not specify speed and torque
points, measure this pressure while the
engine produces maximum power. Use
an exhaust restriction setpoint that
represents a typical in-use value, if
available.
(1) If a typical in-use value for exhaust
restriction is not available for exhaust
systems with a fixed restriction, set the
exhaust restriction at (80 to 100)% of
the maximum exhaust restriction
specified by the manufacturer, or if the
maximum is 5 kPa or less, the set point
must be no less than 1.0 kPa from the
maximum. For example, if the
maximum back pressure is 4.5 kPa, do
not use an exhaust restriction set point
that is less than 3.5 kPa.
(2) If a typical value for exhaust
restriction is not available for exhaust
systems with variable restriction, set the
exhaust restriction between the
maximum clean and dirty values
specified by the manufacturer.
(i) Open crankcase emissions. If the
standard-setting part requires measuring
open crankcase emissions, you may
either measure open crankcase
emissions separately using a method
that we approve in advance, or route
open crankcase emissions directly into
the exhaust system for emission
measurement. If the engine is not
already configured to route open
crankcase emissions for emission
measurement, route open crankcase
emissions as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(1) Use laboratory tubing materials
that are smooth-walled, electrically
conductive, and not reactive with
crankcase emissions. Stainless steel is
an acceptable material. Minimize tube
lengths. We also recommend using
heated or thin-walled or air gapinsulated tubing to minimize
temperature differences between the
wall and the crankcase emission
constituents.
(2) Minimize the number of bends in
the laboratory crankcase tubing and
maximize the radius of any unavoidable
bend.
(3) Use laboratory crankcase exhaust
tubing that meets the engine
manufacturer’s specifications for
crankcase back pressure.
(4) Connect the crankcase exhaust
tubing into the raw exhaust downstream
of any aftertreatment system,
downstream of any installed exhaust
restriction, and sufficiently upstream of
any sample probes to ensure complete
mixing with the engine’s exhaust before
sampling. Extend the crankcase exhaust
tube into the free stream of exhaust to
avoid boundary-layer effects and to
promote mixing. You may orient the
crankcase exhaust tube’s outlet in any
direction relative to the raw exhaust
flow.
28. Section 1065.140 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM
constituents.
(a) General. You may dilute exhaust
with ambient air, synthetic air, or
nitrogen. Note that the composition of
the diluent affects some gaseous
emission measurement instruments’
response to emissions. We recommend
diluting exhaust at a location as close as
possible to the location where ambient
air dilution would occur in use.
(b) Dilution-air conditions and
background concentrations. Before a
diluent is mixed with exhaust, you may
precondition it by increasing or
decreasing its temperature or humidity.
You may also remove constituents to
reduce their background concentrations.
The following provisions apply to
removing constituents or accounting for
background concentrations:
(1) You may measure constituent
concentrations in the diluent and
compensate for background effects on
test results. See § 1065.650 for
calculations that compensate for
background concentrations.
(2) Either measure these background
concentrations the same way you
measure diluted exhaust constituents, or
measure them in a way that does not
affect your ability to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00186
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standards. For example, you may use
the following simplifications for
background sampling:
(i) You may disregard any
proportional sampling requirements.
(ii) You may use unheated gaseous
sampling systems.
(iii) You may use unheated PM
sampling systems.
(iv) You may use continuous
sampling if you use batch sampling for
diluted emissions.
(v) You may use batch sampling if you
use continuous sampling for diluted
emissions.
(3) For removing background PM, we
recommend that you filter all dilution
air, including primary full-flow dilution
air, with high-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters that have an initial
minimum collection efficiency
specification of 99.97% (see § 1065.1001
for procedures related to HEPAfiltration efficiencies). Ensure that
HEPA filters are installed properly so
that background PM does not leak past
the HEPA filters. If you choose to
correct for background PM without
using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that
the background PM in the dilution air
contributes less than 50% to the net PM
collected on the sample filter. You may
correct net PM without restriction if you
use HEPA filtration.
(c) Full-flow dilution; constantvolume sampling (CVS). You may dilute
the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution
tunnel that maintains a nominally
constant volume flow rate, molar flow
rate or mass flow rate of diluted
exhaust, as follows:
(1) Construction. Use a tunnel with
inside surfaces of 300 series stainless
steel. Electrically ground the entire
dilution tunnel. We recommend a thinwalled and insulated dilution tunnel to
minimize temperature differences
between the wall and the exhaust gases.
(2) Pressure control. Maintain static
pressure at the location where raw
exhaust is introduced into the tunnel
within ±1.2 kPa of atmospheric
pressure. You may use a booster blower
to control this pressure. If you test an
engine using more careful pressure
control and you show by engineering
analysis or by test data that you require
this level of control to demonstrate
compliance at the applicable standards,
we will maintain the same level of static
pressure control when we test that
engine.
(3) Mixing. Introduce raw exhaust
into the tunnel by directing it
downstream along the centerline of the
tunnel. You may introduce a fraction of
dilution air radially from the tunnel’s
inner surface to minimize exhaust
interaction with the tunnel walls. You
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
may configure the system with
turbulence generators such as orifice
plates or fins to achieve good mixing.
We recommend a minimum Reynolds
number, Re#, of 4000 for the diluted
exhaust stream, where Re# is based on
the inside diameter of the dilution
tunnel. Re# is defined in § 1065.640.
(4) Flow measurement
preconditioning. You may condition the
diluted exhaust before measuring its
flow rate, as long as this conditioning
takes place downstream of any sample
probes, as follows:
(i) You may use flow straighteners,
pulsation dampeners, or both of these.
(ii) You may use a filter.
(iii) You may use a heat exchanger to
control the temperature upstream of any
flow meter. Note paragraph (c)(6) of this
section regarding aqueous condensation.
(5) Flow measurement. Section
1065.240 describes measurement
instruments for diluted exhaust flow.
(6) Aqueous condensation. To ensure
that you measure a flow that
corresponds to a measured
concentration, you may either prevent
aqueous condensation between the
sample probe location and the flow
meter inlet in the dilution tunnel or you
may allow aqueous condensation to
occur and then measure humidity at the
flow meter inlet. Calculations in
§ 1065.645 and § 1065.650 account for
either method of addressing humidity in
the diluted exhaust. Note that
preventing aqueous condensation
involves more than keeping pure water
in a vapor phase (see § 1065.1001).
(7) Flow compensation. Maintain
nominally constant molar, volumetric or
mass flow of diluted exhaust. You may
maintain nominally constant flow by
either maintaining the temperature and
pressure at the flow meter or by directly
controlling the flow of diluted exhaust.
You may also directly control the flow
of proportional samplers to maintain
proportional sampling. For an
individual test, validate proportional
sampling as described in § 1065.545.
(d) Partial-flow dilution (PFD). You
may dilute a partial flow of raw or
previously diluted exhaust before
measuring emissions. Section 1065.240
describes PFD-related flow
measurement instruments. PFD may
consist of constant or varying dilution
ratios as described in paragraphs (d)(2)
and (3) of this section. An example of
a constant dilution ratio PFD is a
‘‘secondary dilution PM’’ measurement
system. An example of a varying
dilution ratio PFD is a ‘‘bag minidiluter’’ or BMD.
(1) Applicability. (i) You may use PFD
to extract a proportional raw exhaust
sample for any batch or continuous PM
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16123
(ii) For control input, you may use
any sensor output from one or more
measurements; for example, intake-air
flow, fuel flow, exhaust flow, engine
speed, and intake manifold temperature
and pressure.
(iii) Account for any emission transit
time in the PFD system, as necessary.
(iv) You may use preprogrammed data
if they have been determined for the
specific test site, duty cycle, and test
engine from which you dilute
emissions.
(v) We recommend that you run
practice cycles to meet the validation
criteria in § 1065.545. Note that you
must validate every emission test by
meeting the validation criteria with the
data from that specific test. Data from
previously validated practice cycles or
other tests may not be used to validate
a different emission test.
(vi) You may not use a PFD system
that requires preparatory tuning or
calibration with a CVS or with the
emission results from a CVS. Rather,
you must be able to independently
calibrate the PFD.
(e) Dilution air temperature, dilution
ratio, residence time, and temperature
control. Dilute PM samples at least once
upstream of transfer lines. You may
dilute PM samples upstream of a
transfer line using full-flow dilution, or
partial-flow dilution immediately
downstream of a PM probe. Configure
dilution systems as follows:
(1) Control dilution air temperature
just upstream of the mixing zones to
(25 ± 5) °C. We recommend controlling
dilution air temperature to within a
narrower tolerance of (25 ± 1) °C.
(2) Adjust the dilution system s
dilution ratio for your particular engine
and duty cycle to achieve a maximum
dewpoint of the diluted exhaust of
(20 ±3) °C.
(3) Configure your dilution system to
achieve a sample residence time of (1 to
5) seconds from the initial point at
which dilution air was first introduced
into the exhaust to the sample media.
When calculating residence time, use an
assumed flow temperature of 25 °C.
(4) Control inside wall temperature to
a (42 to 52) °C tolerance, as measured
anywhere within 20 cm upstream or
downstream of the PM storage media
(such as a filter). Measure this
temperature with a bare-wire junction
thermocouple with wires that are (0.500
±0.025) mm diameter, or with another
suitable instrument that has equivalent
performance. If heat must be rejected
from the sample to meet this
requirement, reject the heat after the
point at which the last dilution air was
introduced into the diluted exhaust and
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16124
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
reject as little heat as practical to meet
this specification.
29. Section 1065.145 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1065.145 Gaseous and PM probes,
transfer lines, and sampling system
components.
(a) Continuous and batch sampling.
Determine the total mass of each
constituent with continuous or batch
sampling, as described in
§ 1065.15(c)(2). Both types of sampling
systems have probes, transfer lines, and
other sampling system components that
are described in this section.
(b) Gaseous and PM sample probes. A
probe is the first fitting in a sampling
system. It protrudes into a raw or
diluted exhaust stream to extract a
sample, such that its inside and outside
surfaces are in contact with the exhaust.
A sample is transported out of a probe
into a transfer line, as described in
paragraph (c) of this section. The
following provisions apply to sample
probes:
(1) Probe design and construction.
Use sample probes with inside surfaces
of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw
exhaust sampling, use any nonreactive
material capable of withstanding raw
exhaust temperatures. Locate sample
probes where constituents are mixed to
their mean sample concentration. Take
into account the mixing of any
crankcase emissions that may be routed
into the raw exhaust. Locate each probe
to minimize interference with the flow
to other probes. We recommend that all
probes remain free from influences of
boundary layers, wakes, and eddies—
especially near the outlet of a rawexhaust tailpipe where unintended
dilution might occur. Make sure that
purging or back-flushing of a probe does
not influence another probe during
testing. You may use a single probe to
extract a sample of more than one
constituent as long as the probe meets
all the specifications for each
constituent.
(2) Probe installation on multi-stack
engines. We recommend combining
multiple exhaust streams from multistack engines before emission sampling
as described in § 1065.130(c)(6). If this
is impractical, you may install
symmetrical probes and transfer lines in
each stack. In this case, each stack must
be installed such that similar exhaust
velocities are expected at each probe
location. Use identical probe and
transfer line diameters, lengths, and
bends for each stack. Minimize the
individual transfer line lengths, and
manifold the individual transfer lines
into a single transfer line to route the
combined exhaust sample to analyzers
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
and/or batch samplers. For PM sampling
the manifold design must merge the
individual sample streams within 12.5°
of the single sample stream’s flow. Note
that the manifold must meet the same
specifications as the transfer line
according to paragraph (c) of this
section. If you use this probe
configuration and you determine your
exhaust flow rates with a chemical
balance of exhaust gas concentrations
and either intake air flow or fuel flow,
then show by prior testing that the
concentration of O2 in each stack
remains within 5% of the mean O2
concentration throughout the entire
duty cycle.
(3) Gaseous sample probes. Use either
single-port or multi-port probes for
sampling gaseous emissions. You may
orient these probes in any direction
relative to the raw or diluted exhaust
flow. For some probes, you must control
sample temperatures, as follows:
(i) For probes that extract NOX from
diluted exhaust, control the probe’s wall
temperature to prevent aqueous
condensation.
(ii) For probes that extract
hydrocarbons for NMHC or NMHCE
analysis from the diluted exhaust of
compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke
spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke
spark-ignition engines below 19 kW,
maintain a probe wall temperature
tolerance of (191 ± 11) °C.
(4) PM sample probes. Use PM probes
with a single opening at the end. Orient
PM probes to face directly upstream. If
you shield a PM probe’s opening with
a PM pre-classifier such as a hat, you
may not use the preclassifier we specify
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. We
recommend sizing the inside diameter
of PM probes to approximate isokinetic
sampling at the expected mean flow
rate.
(c) Transfer lines. You may use
transfer lines to transport an extracted
sample from a probe to an analyzer,
storage medium, or dilution system.
Minimize the length of all transfer lines
by locating analyzers, storage media,
and dilution systems as close to probes
as practical. We recommend that you
minimize the number of bends in
transfer lines and that you maximize the
radius of any unavoidable bend. Avoid
using 90° elbows, tees, and cross-fittings
in transfer lines. Where such
connections and fittings are necessary,
take steps, using good engineering
judgment, to ensure that you meet the
temperature tolerances in this paragraph
(c). This may involve measuring
temperature at various locations within
transfer lines and fittings. You may use
a single transfer line to transport a
sample of more than one constituent, as
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
long as the transfer line meets all the
specifications for each constituent. The
following construction and temperature
tolerances apply to transfer lines:
(1) Gaseous samples. Use transfer
lines with inside surfaces of 300 series
stainless steel, PTFE, VitonTM, or any
other material that you demonstrate has
better properties for emission sampling.
For raw exhaust sampling, use a nonreactive material capable of
withstanding raw exhaust temperatures.
You may use in-line filters if they do not
react with exhaust constituents and if
the filter and its housing meet the same
temperature requirements as the transfer
lines, as follows:
(i) For NOX transfer lines upstream of
either an NO2-to-NO converter that
meets the specifications of § 1065.378 or
a chiller that meets the specifications of
§ 1065.376, maintain a sample
temperature that prevents aqueous
condensation.
(ii) For THC transfer lines for testing
compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke
spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke
spark-ignition engines below 19 kW,
maintain a wall temperature tolerance
throughout the entire line of (191 ± 11)
°C. If you sample from raw exhaust, you
may connect an unheated, insulated
transfer line directly to a probe. Design
the length and insulation of the transfer
line to cool the highest expected raw
exhaust temperature to no lower than
191 °C, as measured at the transfer line’s
outlet.
(2) PM samples. We recommend
heated transfer lines or a heated
enclosure to minimize temperature
differences between transfer lines and
exhaust constituents. Use transfer lines
that are inert with respect to PM and are
electrically conductive on the inside
surfaces. We recommend using PM
transfer lines made of 300 series
stainless steel. Electrically ground the
inside surface of PM transfer lines.
(d) Optional sample-conditioning
components for gaseous sampling. You
may use the following sampleconditioning components to prepare
gaseous samples for analysis, as long as
you do not install or use them in a way
that adversely affects your ability to
show that your engines comply with all
applicable gaseous emission standards.
(1) NO2-to-NO converter. You may use
an NO2-to-NO converter that meets the
efficiency-performance check specified
in § 1065.378 at any point upstream of
a NOX analyzer, sample bag, or other
storage medium.
(2) Sample dryer. You may use either
type of sample dryer described in this
paragraph (d)(2) to decrease the effects
of water on gaseous emission
measurements. You may not use a
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
chemical dryer, or use dryers upstream
of PM sample filters.
(i) Osmotic-membrane. You may use
an osmotic-membrane dryer upstream of
any gaseous analyzer or storage
medium, as long as it meets the
temperature specifications in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section. Because osmoticmembrane dryers may deteriorate after
prolonged exposure to certain exhaust
constituents, consult with the
membrane manufacturer regarding your
application before incorporating an
osmotic-membrane dryer. Monitor the
dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure,
ptotal, downstream of an osmoticmembrane dryer. You may use
continuously recorded values of Tdew
and ptotal in the amount of water
calculations specified in § 1065.645. If
you do not continuously record these
values, you may use their peak values
observed during a test or their alarm
setpoints as constant values in the
calculations specified in § 1065.645.
You may also use a nominal ptotal, which
you may estimate as the dryer’s lowest
absolute pressure expected during
testing.
(ii) Thermal chiller. You may use a
thermal chiller upstream of some gas
analyzers and storage media. You may
not use a thermal chiller upstream of a
THC measurement system for
compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke
spark-ignition engines, or 4-stroke
spark-ignition engines below 19 kW. If
you use a thermal chiller upstream of an
NO2-to-NO converter or in a sampling
system without an NO2-to-NO converter,
the chiller must meet the NO2 lossperformance check specified in
§ 1065.376. Monitor the dewpoint, Tdew,
and absolute pressure, ptotal,
downstream of a thermal chiller. You
may use continuously recorded values
of Tdew and ptotal in the emission
calculations specified in § 1065.650. If
you do not continuously record these
values, you may use the maximum
temperature and minimum pressure
values observed during a test or the high
alarm temperature setpoint and the low
alarm pressure setpoint as constant
values in the amount of water
calculations specified in § 1065.645.
You may also use a nominal ptotal, which
you may estimate as the dryer’s lowest
absolute pressure expected during
testing. If it is valid to assume the
degree of saturation in the thermal
chiller, you may calculate Tdew based on
the known chiller efficiency and
continuous monitoring of chiller
temperature, Tchiller. If you do not
continuously record values of Tchiller,
you may use its peak value observed
during a test, or its alarm setpoint, as a
constant value to determine a constant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
amount of water according to
§ 1065.645. If it is valid to assume that
Tchiller is equal to Tdew, you may use
Tchiller in lieu of Tdew according to
§ 1065.645. If it is valid to assume a
constant temperature offset between
Tchiller and Tdew, due to a known and
fixed amount of sample reheat between
the chiller outlet and the temperature
measurement location, you may factor
in this assumed temperature offset value
into emission calculations. If we ask for
it, you must show by engineering
analysis or by data the validity of any
assumptions allowed by this paragraph
(d)(2)(ii).
(3) Sample pumps. You may use
sample pumps upstream of an analyzer
or storage medium for any gas. Use
sample pumps with inside surfaces of
300 series stainless steel, PTFE, or any
other material that you demonstrate has
better properties for emission sampling.
For some sample pumps, you must
control temperatures, as follows:
(i) If you use a NOX sample pump
upstream of either an NO2-to-NO
converter that meets § 1065.378 or a
chiller that meets § 1065.376, it must be
heated to prevent aqueous
condensation.
(ii) For testing compression-ignition
engines, 2-stroke spark-ignition engines,
or 4-stroke compression ignition engines
below 19 kW, if you use a THC sample
pump upstream of a THC analyzer or
storage medium, its inner surfaces must
be heated to a tolerance of (191 ± 11) °C
(e) Optional sample-conditioning
components for PM sampling. You may
use the following sample-conditioning
components to prepare PM samples for
analysis, as long as you do not install or
use them in a way that adversely affects
your ability to show that your engines
comply with the applicable PM
emission standards. You may condition
PM samples to minimize positive and
negative biases to PM results, as follows:
(1) PM preclassifier. You may use a
PM preclassifier to remove largediameter particles. The PM preclassifier
may be either an inertial impactor or a
cyclonic separator. It must be
constructed of 300 series stainless steel.
The preclassifier must be rated to
remove at least 50% of PM at an
aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm and no
more than 1% of PM at an aerodynamic
diameter of 1 µm over the range of flow
rates for which you use it. Follow the
preclassifier manufacturer s instructions
for any periodic servicing that may be
necessary to prevent a buildup of PM.
Install the preclassifier in the dilution
system downstream of the last dilution
stage. Configure the preclassifier outlet
with a means of bypassing any PM
sample media so the preclassifier flow
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16125
may be stabilized before starting a test.
Locate PM sample media within 75 cm
downstream of the preclassifier’s exit.
You may not use this preclassifier if you
use a PM probe that already has a
preclassifier. For example, if you use a
hat-shaped preclassifier that is located
immediately upstream of the probe in
such a way that it forces the sample
flow to change direction before entering
the probe, you may not use any other
preclassifier in your PM sampling
system.
(2) Other components. You may
request to use other PM conditioning
components upstream of a PM
preclassifier, such as components that
condition humidity or remove gaseousphase hydrocarbons from the diluted
exhaust stream. You may use such
components only if we approve them
under § 1065.10.
30. Section 1065.170 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous
and PM constituents.
Batch sampling involves collecting
and storing emissions for later analysis.
Examples of batch sampling include
collecting and storing gaseous emissions
in a bag or collecting and storing PM on
a filter. You may use batch sampling to
store emissions that have been diluted
at least once in some way, such as with
CVS, PFD, or BMD. You may use batchsampling to store undiluted emissions.
(a) Sampling methods. If you extract
from a constant-volume flow rate,
sample at a constant-volume flow rate.
If you extract from a varying flow rate,
vary the sample rate in proportion to the
varying flow rate. Validate proportional
sampling after an emission test as
described in § 1065.545. Use storage
media that do not significantly change
measured emission levels (either up or
down). For example, do not use sample
bags for storing emissions if the bags are
permeable with respect to emissions or
if they offgas emissions to the extent
that it affects your ability to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable gaseous
emission standards. As another
example, do not use PM filters that
irreversibly absorb or adsorb gases to the
extent that it affects your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable PM emission standard.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) If you use filter-based sampling
media to extract and store PM for
measurement, your procedure must
meet the following specifications:
(i) If you expect that a filter’s total
surface concentration of PM will exceed
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16126
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
0.473 µg/mm2 for a given test interval,
you may use filter media with a
minimum initial collection efficiency of
98%; otherwise you must use a filter
media with a minimum initial
collection efficiency of 99.7%.
Collection efficiency must be measured
as described in ASTM D 2986–95a
(incorporated by reference in
§ 1065.1010), though you may rely on
the sample-media manufacturer’s
measurements reflected in their product
ratings to show that you meet this
requirement.
(ii) The filter must be circular, with an
overall diameter of 46.50 ± 0.6 mm and
an exposed diameter of at least 38 mm.
See the cassette specifications in
paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section.
(iii) We highly recommend that you
use a pure PTFE filter material that does
not have any flow-through support
bonded to the back and has an overall
thickness of 40 ± 20 µm. An inert
polymer ring may be bonded to the
periphery of the filter material for
support and for sealing between the
filter cassette parts. We consider
Polymethylpentene (PMP) and PTFE
inert materials for a support ring, but
other inert materials may be used. See
the cassette specifications in paragraph
(c)(1)(vii) of this section. We allow the
use of PTFE-coated glass fiber filter
material, as long as this filter media
selection does not affect your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standards, which we base on
a pure PTFE filter material. Note that we
will use pure PTFE filter material for
compliance testing, and we may require
you to use pure PTFE filter material for
any compliance testing we require, such
as for selective enforcement audits.
(iv) You may request to use other
filter materials or sizes under the
provisions of § 1065.10.
(v) To minimize turbulent deposition
and to deposit PM evenly on a filter, use
a 12.5° (from center) divergent cone
angle to transition from the transfer-line
inside diameter to the exposed diameter
of the filter face. Use 300 series stainless
steel for this transition.
(vi) Maintain sample velocity at the
filter face at or below 100 cm/s, where
filter face velocity is the measured
volumetric flow rate of the sample at the
pressure and temperature upstream of
the filter face, divided by the filter’s
exposed area.
(vii) Use a clean cassette designed to
the specifications of Figure 1 of
§ 1065.170 and made of any of the
following materials: DelrinTM, 300 series
stainless steel, polycarbonate,
acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)
resin, or conductive polypropylene. We
recommend that you keep filter
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
cassettes clean by periodically washing
or wiping them with a compatible
solvent applied using a lint-free cloth.
Depending upon your cassette material,
ethanol (C2H5OH) might be an
acceptable solvent. Your cleaning
frequency will depend on your engine’s
PM and HC emissions.
(viii) If you store filters in cassettes in
an automatic PM sampler, cover or seal
individual filter cassettes after sampling
to prevent communication of semivolatile matter from one filter to
another.
*
*
*
*
*
31. Section 1065.190 is amended by
revising paragraphs (e) and (g)(6) to read
as follows:
32. Section 1065.195 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.195 PM-stabilization environment
for in-situ analyzers.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(4) Absolute pressure. Use good
engineering judgment to maintain a
tolerance of absolute pressure if your
PM measurement instrument requires it.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart C—[Amended]
33. Section 1065.201 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) and
adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 1065.190 PM-stabilization and weighing
environments for gravimetric analysis.
§ 1065.201 Overview and general
provisions.
*
(a) Scope. This subpart specifies
measurement instruments and
associated system requirements related
to emission testing in a laboratory or
similar environment and in the field.
This includes laboratory instruments
and portable emission measurement
systems (PEMS) for measuring engine
parameters, ambient conditions, flowrelated parameters, and emission
concentrations.
(b) Instrument types. You may use any
of the specified instruments as
described in this subpart to perform
emission tests. If you want to use one of
these instruments in a way that is not
specified in this subpart, or if you want
to use a different instrument, you must
first get us to approve your alternate
procedure under § 1065.10. Where we
specify more than one instrument for a
particular measurement, we may
identify which instrument serves as the
reference for comparing with an
alternate procedure.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Redundant systems. For all
measurement instruments described in
this subpart, you may use data from
multiple instruments to calculate test
results for a single test. If you use
redundant systems, use good
engineering judgment to use multiple
measured values in calculations or to
disregard individual measurements.
Note that you must keep your results
from all measurements, as described in
§ 1065.25. This requirement applies
whether or not you actually use the
measurements in your calculations.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Recommended practices. This
subpart identifies a variety of
recommended but not required practices
for proper measurements. We believe in
most cases it is necessary to follow these
recommended practices for accurate and
*
*
*
*
(e) Verify the following ambient
conditions using measurement
instruments that meet the specifications
in subpart C of this part:
(1) Continuously measure dewpoint
and ambient temperature. Use these
values to determine if the stabilization
and weighing environments have
remained within the tolerances
specified in paragraph (d) of this section
for at least 60 min before weighing
filters. We recommend that you provide
an interlock that automatically prevents
the balance from reporting values if
either of the environments have not
been within the applicable tolerances
for the past 60 min.
(2) Continuously measure
atmospheric pressure within the
weighing environment. You may use a
shared atmospheric pressure meter as
long as you can show that your
ventilation system for the weighing
environment maintains ambient
pressure at the balance within ±100 Pa
of the shared atmospheric pressure
meter. Provide a means to record the
most recent atmospheric pressure when
you weigh each PM sample. Use this
value to calculate the PM buoyancy
correction in § 1065.690.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(6) We recommend that you neutralize
PM sample media to within ±2.0 V of
neutral. Measure static voltages as
follows:
(i) Measure static voltage of PM
sample media according to the
electrostatic voltmeter manufacturer’s
instructions.
(ii) Measure static voltage of PM
sample media while the media is at least
15 cm away from any grounded surfaces
to avoid mirror image charge
interference.
PO 00000
Frm 00190
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
repeatable measurements and we intend
to follow them as much as possible for
our testing. However, we do not
specifically require you to follow these
recommended practices to perform a
valid test, as long as you meet the
required calibrations and verifications
of measurement systems specified in
subpart D of this part.
34. Section 1065.210 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) before the figure
to read as follows:
§ 1065.210
Work input and output sensors.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(a) Application. Use instruments as
specified in this section to measure
work inputs and outputs during engine
operation. We recommend that you use
sensors, transducers, and meters that
meet the specifications in Table 1 of
§ 1065.205. Note that your overall
systems for measuring work inputs and
outputs must meet the linearity
verifications in § 1065.307. We
recommend that you measure work
inputs and outputs where they cross the
system boundary as shown in Figure 1
of § 1065.210. The system boundary is
different for air-cooled engines than for
liquid-cooled engines. If you choose to
measure work before or after a work
conversion, relative to the system
boundary, use good engineering
judgment to estimate any workconversion losses in a way that avoids
overestimation of total work. For
example, if it is impractical to
instrument the shaft of an exhaust
turbine generating electrical work, you
may decide to measure its converted
electrical work. As another example,
you may decide to measure the tractive
(i.e., electrical output) power of a
locomotive, rather than the brake power
of the locomotive engine. In these cases,
divide the electrical work by accurate
values of electrical generator efficiency
(h<1), or assume an efficiency of 1
(h=1), which would overestimate brakespecific emissions. For the example of
using locomotive tractive power with a
generator efficiency of 1 (h=1), this
means using the tractive power as the
brake power in emission calculations.
Do not underestimate any work
conversion efficiencies for any
components outside the system
boundary that do not return work into
the system boundary. And do not
overestimate any work conversion
efficiencies for components outside the
system boundary that do return work
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
16127
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:
external NO2-to-NO converter that meets
the verification in § 1065.378. Configure
the converter with a bypass line if it is
needed to facilitate this verification.
*
*
*
*
*
39. Section 1065.280 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.215 Pressure transducers,
temperature sensors, and dewpoint
sensors.
§ 1065.280 Paramagnetic and
magnetopneumatic O2 detection analyzers.
*
(a) Application. You may use a
paramagnetic detection (PMD) or
magnetopneumatic detection (MPD)
analyzer to measure O2 concentration in
raw or diluted exhaust for batch or
continuous sampling. You may use O2
measurements with intake air or fuel
flow measurements to calculate exhaust
flow rate according to § 1065.650.
(b) Component requirements. We
recommend that you use a PMD or MPD
analyzer that meets the specifications in
Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that it must
meet the linearity verification in
§ 1065.307. You may use a PMD or MPD
that has compensation algorithms that
are functions of other gaseous
measurements and the engine’s known
or assumed fuel properties. The target
value for any compensation algorithm is
0.0% (that is, no bias high and no bias
low), regardless of the uncompensated
signal’s bias.
40. Section 1065.290 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
(e) Dewpoint. For PM-stabilization
environments, we recommend chilledsurface hygrometers, which include
chilled mirror detectors and chilled
surface acoustic wave (SAW) detectors.
For other applications, we recommend
thin-film capacitance sensors. You may
use other dewpoint sensors, such as a
wet-bulb/dry-bulb psychrometer, where
appropriate.
36. Section 1065.220 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.220
Fuel flow meter.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Flow conditioning. For any type of
fuel flow meter, condition the flow as
needed to prevent wakes, eddies,
circulating flows, or flow pulsations
from affecting the accuracy or
repeatability of the meter. You may
accomplish this by using a sufficient
length of straight tubing (such as a
length equal to at least 10 pipe
diameters) or by using specially
designed tubing bends, straightening
fins, or pneumatic pulsation dampeners
to establish a steady and predictable
velocity profile upstream of the meter.
Condition the flow as needed to prevent
any gas bubbles in the fuel from
affecting the fuel meter.
37. Section 1065.265 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1065.265
Nonmethane cutter.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Configuration. Configure the
nonmethane cutter with a bypass line if
it is needed for the verification
described in § 1065.365.
*
*
*
*
*
38. Section 1065.270 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 1065.270
Chemiluminescent detector.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) NO2-to-NO converter. Place
upstream of the CLD an internal or
PO 00000
Frm 00191
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 1065.290
PM gravimetric balance.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Use a pan that centers the PM
sample media (such as a filter) on the
weighing pan. For example, use a pan
in the shape of a cross that has upswept
tips that center the PM sample media on
the pan.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart D—[Amended]
41. Section 1065.303 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.303 Summary of required
calibration and verifications
The following table summarizes the
required and recommended calibrations
and verifications described in this
subpart and indicates when these have
to be performed:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16128
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303.—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS
Type of calibration or verification
Minimum frequency a
§ 1065.305: Accuracy, repeatability and noise ...
Accuracy: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.
Repeatability: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.
Noise: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.
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.
Upon initial installation, after system reconfiguration, and after major maintenance.
§ 1065.307: Linearity ...........................................
§ 1065.308: Continuous analyzer system response and recording.
§ 1065.309: Continuous analyzer uniform response.
§ 1065.310: Torque .............................................
§ 1065.315: Pressure, temperature, dewpoint ....
§ 1065.320: Fuel flow ..........................................
§ 1065.325: Intake flow .......................................
§ 1065.330: Exhaust flow ....................................
§ 1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) .............
§ 1065.341: CVS sampler and batch verification
§ 1065.345: Vacuum leak ....................................
§ 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O interference ............
§ 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and H2O interference.
§ 1065.360: FID calibration THC FID optimization, and THC FID verification.
§ 1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O2 interference ...
§ 1065.365:
§ 1065.370:
§ 1065.372:
§ 1065.376:
§ 1065.378:
§ 1065.390:
Nonmethane cutter penetration .......
CLD CO2 and H2O quench .............
NDUV HC and H2O interference .....
Chiller NO2 penetration ...................
NO2-to-NO converter conversion ....
PM balance and weighing ...............
§ 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing ...
Upon initial installation, after system reconfiguration, and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Before each laboratory test according to subpart F of this part and before each field test according to subpart J of this part.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Calibrate all FID analyzers: Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Optimize and determine CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: Upon initial installation and
after major maintenance.
Verify CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: Upon initial installation, within 185 days before
testing, and after major maintenance.
For all FID analyzers: Upon initial installation, after major maintenance.
For THC FID analyzers: Upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and after FID optimization according to § 1065.360.
Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.
Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance.
Independent verification: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after
major maintenance.
Zero, span, and reference sample verifications: Within 12 hours of weighing, and after major
maintenance.
Independent verification: Upon 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
42.Section 1065.305 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(8) to
read as follows:
§ 1065.305 Verifications for accuracy,
repeatability, and noise.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(4) Use the instrument to quantify a
NIST-traceable reference quantity, gref.
For gas analyzers the reference gas must
meet the specifications of § 1065.750.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00192
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
quantity. Stabilization time may include
time to purge an instrument and time to
account for its response.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Repeat the steps specified in
paragraphs (d)(2) through (7) of this
section until you have ten arithmetic
means (y1, y2, yi,* * * y10), ten standard
deviations, (s1, s2, si, * * * s10), and
ten errors (e1, e2 , ei , * * * e10).
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16129
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
43. Section 1065.307 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(6),
adding paragraph (d)(8) and revising
Table 1 to read as follows:
§ 1065.307
Linearity verification.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Performance requirements. If a
measurement system does not meet the
applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of
this section, correct the deficiency by recalibrating, servicing, or replacing
components as needed. Repeat the
linearity verification after correcting the
deficiency to ensure that the
measurement system meets the linearity
criteria. Before you may use a
measurement system that does not meet
linearity criteria, you must demonstrate
to us that the deficiency does not
adversely affect your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standards.
(c) * * *
(6) For all measured quantities except
temperature, use instrument
manufacturer recommendations and
good engineering judgment to select at
least 10 reference values, yrefi, that are
within the range from zero to the
highest values expected during emission
testing. We recommend selecting a zero
reference signal as one of the reference
values of the linearity verification. For
temperature linearity verifications, we
recommend three to five reference
values.
*
*
*
*
*
¯
(13) Use the arithmetic means, yi, and
reference values, yrefi, to calculate leastsquares linear regression parameters and
statistical values to compare to the
minimum performance criteria specified
in Table 1 of this section. Use the
calculations described in § 1065.602.
Using good engineering judgment, you
may weight the results of individual
¯
data pairs (i.e., (yrefi, yi )), in the linear
regression calculations.
(d) * * *
(8) Analog-to-digital conversion of
stand-alone temperature signals. For
reference values, select a temperature
signal calibrator to simultaneously
simulate and measure an analog signal
similar to your temperature sensor(s).
Analog signals may include voltage,
current, resistance, frequency, and pulse
signals. Use a calibrator that is
independently linearized and coldjunction compensated, as necessary, and
is NIST-traceable within ±0.5%
uncertainty.
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.307.—MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATIONS
Linearity criteria
Measurement system
Quantity
Minimum verification frequency a
Engine speed .......................................
fn ...........
Within 370 days before testing ...........
Engine torque ......................................
Electrical work .....................................
Fuel flow rate .......................................
Intake-air flow rate ...............................
Dilution air flow rate .............................
Diluted exhaust flow rate .....................
Raw exhaust flow rate .........................
Batch sampler flow rates .....................
Gas dividers .........................................
T ...........
W ..........
˚
m ..........
˚
n ...........
˚
n ...........
˚
n ...........
˚
n ...........
˚
n ...........
x ...........
Within
Within
Within
Within
Within
Within
Within
Within
Within
370
370
370
370
370
370
185
370
370
All gas analyzers .................................
PM balance ..........................................
Stand-alone pressures ........................
Analog-to-digital conversion of standalone temperature signals.
x ...........
m ..........
p ...........
·T ..........
Within
Within
Within
Within
35 days before testing .............
370 days before testing ...........
370 days before testing ...........
370 days before testing ...........
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
before
testing ...........
testing ...........
testing d .........
testing d .........
testing d .........
testing d .........
testing d .........
testing d .........
testing ...........
|a0
|b
≤0.05%
fnmax.
≤1% ·Tmax
≤1% ·Tmax
˚
≤1% ·mmax
˚
≤1% ·nmax
˚
≤1% ·nmax
˚
≤1% ·nmax
˚
≤1% ·nmax
˚
≤1% ·nmax
≤0.5%
··xmax.
≤1% ·xmax
≤1% ·mmax
≤1% ·pmax
≤1% ·Tmax
a1 c
SEE b
0.98–1.02
≤2% fnmax
≥0.990
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02 e
0.98–1.02 e
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02 e
0.98–1.02
0.98–1.02
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
≤2%
Tmax
Tmax
˚
·mmax
·nmax
˚
·nmax
˚
·nmax
˚
·nmax
˚
·nmax
·xmax
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
≥0.990
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01
0.99–1.01
≤1%
≤1%
≤1%
≤1%
·xmax
·mmax
·pmax
·Tmax
≥0.998
≥0.998
≥0.998
≥0.998
r2
a Perform
a linearity verification more frequently if the instrument manufacturer recommends it or based on good engineering judgment.
refers to the peak value expected during testing or at the applicable standard over any test interval, whichever is greater.
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 § 1065.341
(the propane check) or for systems that agree within ±2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and exhaust.
e a 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
1
proportional to the actual value.
b ‘‘max.’’
c The
44. Section 1065.308 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00193
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16130
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
any testing. In any case the mean rise
time and the mean fall time must be no
more than 10 seconds.
(2) The frequency at which the system
records an updated concentration must
be at least 5 Hz. This criteria assumes
that the frequency content of significant
changes in emission concentrations
during emission testing do not exceed 1
Hz. In any case the mean rise time and
the mean fall time must be no more than
10 seconds.
(3) You may use other criteria if we
approve the criteria in advance.
(4) For PEMS, you do not have to
meet this criteria if your PEMS meets
the overall PEMS check in § 1065.920.
(d) Procedure. Use the following
procedure to verify the response of a
continuous gas analyzer system:
(1) Instrument setup. Follow the
analyzer system manufacturer’s start-up
and operating instructions. Adjust the
system as needed to optimize
performance.
(2) Equipment setup. Using minimal
gas transfer line lengths between all
connections, connect a zero-air source
to one inlet of a fast-acting 3-way valve
(2 inlets, 1 outlet). Using a gas divider,
equally blend an NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4,
balance N2 span gas with a span gas of
NO2, balance N2. Connect the gas
divider outlet to the other inlet of the 3way valve. Connect the valve outlet to
an overflow at the gas analyzer system’s
probe or to an overflow fitting between
the probe and transfer line to all the
analyzers being verified. Note that you
may omit any of these gas constituents
if they are not relevant to your analyzers
for this verification.
(3) Data collection. (i) Switch the
valve to flow zero gas.
(ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting
for transport delays and the slowest
instrument’s full response.
(iii) Start recording data at the
frequency used during emission testing.
Each recorded value must be a unique
updated concentration measured by the
analyzer; you may not use interpolation
to increase the number of recorded
values.
(iv) Switch the valve to flow the
blended span gases.
(v) Allow for transport delays and the
slowest instrument’s full response.
(vi) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section to
record seven full cycles, ending with
zero gas flowing to the analyzers.
(vii) Stop recording.
(e) Performance evaluation. (1) If you
chose to demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, use the
data from paragraph (d)(3) of this
section to calculate the mean rise time,
t10–90, and mean fall time, t90–10, for each
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
of the analyzers. Multiply these times
(in seconds) by their respective
recording frequencies in Hertz (1/
second). The value for each result must
be at least 5. If the value is less than 5,
increase the recording frequency or
adjust the flows or design of the
sampling system to increase the rise
time and fall time as needed. You may
also configure digital filters to increase
rise and fall times. The mean rise time
and mean fall time must be no greater
than 10 seconds.
(2) If a measurement system fails the
criterion in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, ensure that signals from the
system are updated and recorded at a
frequency of at least 5 Hz. In any case,
the mean rise time and mean fall time
must be no greater than 10 seconds.
(3) If a measurement system fails the
criteria in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of
this section, you may use the
continuous analyzer system only if the
deficiency does not adversely affect
your ability to show compliance with
the applicable standards.
45. Section 1065.309 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.309 Continuous gas analyzer
uniform response verification.
(a) Scope and frequency. Perform this
verification if you multiply or divide
one continuous gas analyzer’s response
by another’s to quantify a gaseous
emission. Note that we consider water
vapor a gaseous constituent. You do not
have to perform this verification if you
multiply one gas analyzer’s response to
another’s to compensate for an
interference that never requires a
compensation more than 2% of the
flow-weighted mean concentration at
the applicable standard or during
testing, whichever is greatest. You also
do not have to perform this verification
for batch gas analyzer systems or for
continuous analyzer systems that are
only used for discrete-mode testing.
Perform this verification after initial
installation or major maintenance. Also
perform this verification if you
reconfigure your system in a way that
would change system response. For
example, perform this verification if you
add a significant volume to the transfer
lines by increasing their length or by
adding a filter; or if you change the
frequency at which you sample and
record gas-analyzer concentrations.
(b) Measurement principles. This
procedure verifies the time-alignment
and uniform response of continuously
combined gas measurements.
(c) System requirements. Demonstrate
that continuously combined
concentration measurements have a
uniform rise and fall during a
PO 00000
Frm 00194
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
simultaneous step change in both
concentrations. During a system
response to a rapid change in multiple
gas concentrations, demonstrate that the
t50 times of all combined analyzers all
occur at the same recorded second of
data or between the same two recorded
seconds of data.
(d) Procedure. Use the following
procedure to verify the response of a
continuous gas analyzer system:
(1) Instrument setup. Follow the
analyzer system manufacturer’s start-up
and operating instructions. Adjust the
system as needed to optimize
performance.
(2) Equipment setup. Using a gas
divider, equally blend a span gas of NOCO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, balance N2, with a
span gas of NO2, balance N2. Connect
the gas divider outlet to a 100 °C heated
line. Connect the other end of this line
to a 100 °C heated three-way tee. Next
connect a dewpoint generator, set at a
dewpoint of 50 °C, to one end of a
heated line at 100 °C. Connect the other
end of this line to the heated tee and
connect a third 100 °C heated line from
the tee to an overflow at the inlet of a
100 °C heated fast-acting three-way
valve (two inlets, one outlet). Connect a
zero-air source, heated to 100 °C, to a
separate overflow at the other inlet of
the three-way valve. Connect the threeway valve outlet to the gas analyzer
system’s probe or to an overflow fitting
between the probe and transfer line to
all the analyzers being verified. Note
that you may omit any of these gas
constituents if they are not relevant to
your analyzers for this verification.
(3) Data collection. (i) Switch the
valve to flow zero gas.
(ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting
for transport delays and the slowest
instrument’s full response.
(iii) Start recording data at the
frequency used during emission testing.
(iv) Switch the valve to flow span gas.
(v) Allow for transport delays and the
slowest instrument’s full response.
(vi) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(d)(3)(i) through (v) of this section to
record seven full cycles, ending with
zero gas flowing to the analyzers.
(vii) Stop recording.
(e) Performance evaluations. Perform
the following evaluations:
(1) Uniform response evaluation. (i)
Calculate the mean rise time, t10–90,
mean fall time, t90–10 for each analyzer.
(ii) Determine the maximum mean
rise and fall times for the slowest
responding analyzer in each
combination of continuous analyzer
signals that you use to determine a
single emission concentration.
(iii) If the maximum rise time or fall
time is greater than one second, verify
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
that all other gas analyzers combined
with it have mean rise and fall times of
at least 75% of that analyzer’s response.
If the slowest analyzer has t10–90 and
t90–10 values less than 1 sec, no
dispersion is necessary for any of the
analyzers.
(iv) If any analyzer has shorter rise or
fall times, disperse that signal so that it
better matches the rise and fall times of
the slowest signal with which it is
combined. We recommend that you
perform dispersion using SAE 2001–01–
3536 (incorporated by reference in
§ 1065.1010) as a guide.
(v) Repeat this verification after
optimizing your systems to ensure that
you dispersed signals correctly. If after
repeated attempts at dispersing signals
your system still fails this verification,
you may use the continuous analyzer
system if the deficiency does not
adversely affect your ability to show
compliance with the applicable
standards.
(2) Time alignment evaluation. (i)
After all signals are adjusted to meet the
uniform response evaluation, determine
the second at which—or the two
seconds between which—each analyzer
crossed the midpoint of its response, t50.
(ii) Verify that all combined gas
analyzer signals are time-aligned such
that all of their t50 times occurred at the
same second or between the same two
seconds in the recorded data.
(iii) If your system fails to meet this
criterion, you may change the time
VerDate Aug<31>2005
05:25 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
alignment of your system and retest the
system completely. If after changing the
time alignment of your system, some of
the t50 times still are not aligned, take
corrective action by dispersing analyzer
signals that have the shortest rise and
fall times.
(iv) If some t50 times are still not
aligned after repeated attempts at
dispersion and time alignment, you may
use the continuous analyzer system if
the deficiency does not adversely affect
your ability to show compliance with
the applicable standards.
46. Section 1065.310 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.310
Torque calibration.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Strain gage or proving ring
calibration. This technique applies force
either by hanging weights on a lever arm
(these weights and their lever arm
length are not used as part of the
reference torque determination) or by
operating the dynamometer at different
torques. Apply at least six force
combinations for each applicable
torque-measuring range, spacing the
force quantities about equally over the
range. Oscillate or rotate the
dynamometer during calibration to
reduce frictional static hysteresis. In this
case, the reference torque is determined
by multiplying the force output from the
reference meter (such as a strain gage or
proving ring) by its effective lever-arm
PO 00000
Frm 00195
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16131
length, which you measure from the
point where the force measurement is
made to the dynamometer’s rotational
axis. Make sure you measure this length
perpendicular to the reference meter’s
measurement axis and perpendicular to
the dynamometer’s rotational axis.
47. Section 1065.340 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f)(6)(ii), (f)(9), and
(g)(6)(i) and Figure 1 to read as follows:
§ 1065.340 Diluted exhaust flow (CVS)
calibration.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The mean dewpoint of the
¯
calibration air, Tdew. See § 1065.640 for
permissible assumptions during
emission measurements.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) Determine Cd and the lowest
¯
allowable DpCFV according to
§ 1065.640.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) The mean flow rate of the reference
flow meter, nref. This may include
several measurements of different
quantities, such as reference meter
pressures and temperatures, for
calculating nref.
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00196
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
EP03AP07.012
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16132
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
48. Section 1065.341 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 1065.341 CVS and batch sampler
verification (propane check).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) You may repeat the propane check
to verify a batch sampler, such as a PM
secondary dilution system.
*
*
*
*
*
49. Section 1065.345 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1065.345
Vacuum-side leak verification.
(a) Scope and frequency. Upon initial
sampling system installation, after major
maintenance, and before each test
according to subpart F of this part for
laboratory tests and according to subpart
J of this part for field tests, verify that
there are no significant vacuum-side
leaks using one of the leak tests
described in this section. This
verification does not apply to any fullflow portion of a CVS dilution system.
(b) Measurement principles. A leak
may be detected either by measuring a
small amount of flow when there should
be zero flow, or by detecting the
dilution of a known concentration of
span gas when it flows through the
vacuum side of a sampling system.
(c) Low-flow leak test. Test a sampling
system for low-flow leaks as follows:
(1) Seal the probe end of the system
by taking one of the following steps:
(i) Cap or plug the end of the sample
probe.
(ii) Disconnect the transfer line at the
probe and cap or plug the transfer line.
(iii) Close a leak-tight valve in-line
between a probe and transfer line.
(2) Operate all vacuum pumps. After
stabilizing, verify that the flow through
the vacuum-side of the sampling system
is less than 0.5% of the system’s normal
in-use flow rate. You may estimate
typical analyzer and bypass flows as an
approximation of the system’s normal
in-use flow rate.
(d) Dilution-of-span-gas leak test. You
may use any gas analyzer for this test.
If you use a FID for this test, correct for
any HC contamination in the sampling
system according to § 1065.660. To
avoid misleading results from this test,
we recommend using only analyzers
that have a repeatability of 0.5% or
better at the span gas concentration used
for this test. Perform a vacuum-side leak
test as follows:
(1) Prepare a gas analyzer as you
would for emission testing.
(2) Supply span gas to the analyzer
port and verify that it measures the span
gas concentration within its expected
measurement accuracy and
repeatability.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(3) Route overflow span gas to one of
the following locations in the sampling
system:
(i) The end of the sample probe.
(ii) Disconnect the transfer line at the
probe connection, and overflow the
span gas at the open end of the transfer
line.
(iii) A three-way valve installed inline between a probe and its transfer
line, such as a system overflow zero and
span port.
(4) Verify that the measured overflow
span gas concentration is within ±0.5%
of the span gas concentration. A
measured value lower than expected
indicates a leak, but a value higher than
expected may indicate a problem with
the span gas or the analyzer itself. A
measured value higher than expected
does not indicate a leak.
(e) Vacuum-decay leak test. To
perform this test you must apply a
vacuum to the vacuum-side volume of
your sampling system and then observe
the leak rate of your system as a decay
in the applied vacuum. To perform this
test you must know the vacuum-side
volume of your sampling system to
within ±10% of its true volume. For this
test you must also use measurement
instruments that meet the specifications
of subpart C of this part and of this
subpart D. Perform a vacuum-decay leak
test as follows:
(1) Seal the probe end of the system
as close to the probe opening as possible
by taking one of the following steps:
(i) Cap or plug the end of the sample
probe.
(ii) Disconnect the transfer line at the
probe and cap or plug the transfer line.
(iii) Close a leak-tight valve in-line
between a probe and transfer line.
(2) Operate all vacuum pumps. Draw
a vacuum that is representative of
normal operating conditions. In the case
of sample bags, we recommend that you
repeat your normal sample bag pumpdown procedure twice to minimize any
trapped volumes.
(3) Turn off the sample pumps and
seal the system. Measure and record the
absolute pressure of the trapped gas, the
time, and optionally the system absolute
temperature. Wait at least 60 sec and
again record the pressure, time, and
optionally temperature. You may have
to adjust your wait time by trial and
error to accurately quantify a change in
pressure over a time interval.
(4) Calculate the leak flow rate based
on an assumed value of zero for
pumped-down bag volumes and based
on known values for the sample system
volume, the initial and final pressures,
optional temperatures, and elapsed
time. Verify that the vacuum-decay leak
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16133
flow rate is less than 0.5% of the
system’s normal in-use flow rate.
50. Section 1065.350 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.350 H2O interference verification
for CO2 NDIR analyzers.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) System requirements. A CO2 NDIR
analyzer must have an H2O interference
that is within (0 ±400) µmol/mol.,
though we strongly recommend a lower
interference that is within (0 ±200)
µmol/mol.
(d) Procedure. Perform the
interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the
CO2 NDIR analyzer as you would before
an emission test.
(2) Create a humidified test gas by
bubbling zero air that meets the
specifications in § 1065.750 through
distilled water in a sealed vessel at (25
±10) °C.
(3) Downstream of the vessel,
maintain the humidified test gas
temperature at least 5 ° C above its
dewpoint. We recommend using a
heated transfer line.
(4) Introduce the humidified test gas
upstream of any sample dryer, if one is
used during testing.
(5) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the transfer
line and to account for analyzer
response.
(6) While the analyzer measures the
sample’s concentration, record 30
seconds of sampled data. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of this data. The
analyzer meets the interference
verification if this value is within (0
±400) µmol/mol.
*
*
*
*
*
51. Section 1065.355 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(1) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.355 H2O and CO2 interference
verification for CO NDIR analyzers.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Procedure. Perform the
interference verification as follows:
(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the
CO NDIR analyzer as you would before
an emission test.
(2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas
by bubbling a CO2 span gas through
distilled water in a sealed vessel at (25
±10) °C.
(3) Downstream of the vessel,
maintain the humidified gas
temperature at least 5 °C above its
dewpoint. We recommend using a
heated transfer line.
(4) Introduce the humidified CO2 test
gas upstream of any sample dryer, if one
is used during testing.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16134
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(5) Measure the humidified CO2 test
gas dewpoint and pressure as close as
possible to the inlet of the analyzer, or
to the inlet of the sample dryer, if one
is used.
(6) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the transfer
line and to account for analyzer
response.
(7) While the analyzer measures the
sample’s concentration, record its
output for 30 seconds. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of this data.
(8) Scale the CO2 interference by
multiplying this mean value (from
paragraph (d)(7) of this section) by the
ratio of expected CO2 to span gas CO2
concentration. In other words, estimate
the flow-weighted mean dry
concentration of CO2 expected during
testing, and then divide this value by
the concentration of CO2 in the span gas
used for this verification. Then multiply
this ratio by the mean value recorded
during this verification (from paragraph
(d)(7) of this section).
(9) Scale the H2O interference by
estimating the flow-weighted mean
concentration of H2O expected during
testing, then divide this value by the
concentration of H2O in the span gas
used for this verification. Then multiply
this ratio by the CO2-scaled result of
paragraph (d)(8) of this section.
(10) The analyzer meets the
interference verification if the result of
paragraph (d)(9) of this section is within
±2% of the flow-weighted mean
concentration of CO expected at the
standard.
(e) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your CO sampling system and
your emission calculations procedures,
the combined CO2 and H2O interference
for your CO NDIR analyzer always
affects your brake-specific CO emission
results within ±0.5% of the applicable
CO standard.
*
*
*
*
*
52. Section 1065.360 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(2) Determine the methane (CH4)
response factor after initial analyzer
installation and after major maintenance
as described in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(3) Verify the methane (CH4) response
within 185 days before testing as
described in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) Calibration. Use good engineering
judgment to develop a calibration
procedure, such as one based on the
FID-analyzer manufacturer’s
instructions and recommended
frequency for calibrating the FID.
Alternately, you may remove system
components for off-site calibration. For
a FID that measures THC, calibrate
using C3H8 calibration gases that meet
the specifications of § 1065.750. For a
FID that measures CH4, calibrate using
CH4 calibration gases that meet the
specifications of § 1065.750. We
recommend FID analyzer zero and span
gases that contain approximately the
flow-weighted mean concentration of O2
expected during testing. If you use a FID
to measure methane (CH4) downstream
of a nonmethane cutter, you may
calibrate that FID using CH4 calibration
gases with the cutter. Regardless of the
calibration gas composition, calibrate on
a carbon number basis of one (C1). For
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of
concentration 200 µmol/mol, span the
FID to respond with a value of 600
µmol/mol. As another example, if you
use a CH4 span gas with a concentration
of 200 µmol/mol, span the FID to
respond with a value of 200 µmol/mol.
(c) THC FID response optimization.
This procedure is only for FID analyzers
that measure THC. Use good
engineering judgment for initial
instrument start-up and basic operating
adjustment using FID fuel and zero air.
Heated FIDs must be within their
required operating temperature ranges.
Optimize FID response at the most
common analyzer range expected during
emission testing. Optimization involves
adjusting flows and pressures of FID
fuel, burner air, and sample to minimize
response variations to various
hydrocarbon species in the exhaust. Use
good engineering judgment to trade off
peak FID response to propane
calibration gases to achieve minimal
response variations to different
hydrocarbon species. For an example of
trading off response to propane for
relative responses to other hydrocarbon
species, see SAE 770141 (incorporated
by reference in § 1065.1010). Determine
the optimum flow rates for FID fuel,
burner air, and sample and record them
for future reference.
(d) THC FID CH4 response factor
determination. This procedure is only
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for FID analyzers that measure THC.
Since FID analyzers generally have a
different response to CH4 versus C3H8,
determine each THC FID analyzer’s CH4
response factor, RFCH4, after FID
optimization. Use the most recent
RFCH4 measured according to this
section in the calculations for HC
determination described in § 1065.660
to compensate for CH4 response.
Determine RFCH4 as follows, noting that
you do not determine RFCH4 for FIDs
that are calibrated and spanned using
CH4 with a nonmethane cutter:
(1) Select a C3H8 span gas
concentration that you use to span your
analyzers before emission testing. Use
only span gases that meet the
specifications of § 1065.750. Record the
C3H8 concentration of the gas.
(2) Select a CH4 span gas
concentration that you use to span your
analyzers before emission testing. Use
only span gases that meet the
specifications of § 1065.750. Record the
CH4 concentration of the gas.
(3) Start and operate the FID analyzer
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.
(4) Confirm that the FID analyzer has
been calibrated using C3H8. Calibrate on
a carbon number basis of one (C1). For
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of
concentration 200 µmol/mol, span the
FID to respond with a value of 600
µmol/mol.
(5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that
you use for emission testing.
(6) Span the FID with the C3H8 span
gas that you selected under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
(7) Introduce at the sample port of the
FID analyzer, the CH4 span gas that you
selected under paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(8) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the analyzer
and to account for its response.
(9) While the analyzer measures the
CH4 concentration, record 30 seconds of
sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic
mean of these values.
(10) Divide the mean measured
concentration by the recorded span
concentration of the CH4 calibration gas.
The result is the FID analyzer’s response
factor for CH4, RFCH4.
(e) THC FID methane (CH4) response
verification. This procedure is only for
FID analyzers that measure THC. If the
value of RFCH4 from paragraph (d) of
this section is within ±5.0% of its most
recent previously determined value, the
THC FID passes the methane response
verification. For example, if the most
recent previous value for RFCH4 was
1.05 and it changed by ±0.05 to become
1.10 or it changed by ¥0.05 to become
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
1.00, either case would be acceptable
because ±4.8% is less than ±5.0%.
Verify RFCH4 as follows:
(1) First verify that the pressures and
flow rates of FID fuel, burner air, and
sample are each within ±0.5% of their
most recent previously recorded values,
as described in paragraph (c) of this
section. You may adjust these flow rates
as necessary. Then determine the RFCH4
as described in paragraph (d) of this
section and verify that it is within the
tolerance specified in this paragraph (e).
(2) If RFCH4 is not within the tolerance
specified in this paragraph (e), reoptimize the FID response as described
in paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) Determine a new RFCH4 as
described in paragraph (d) of this
section. Use this new value of RFCH4 in
the calculations for HC determination,
as described in § 1065.660.
53. Section 1065.362 is amended by
revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.362 Non-stoichiometric raw
exhaust FID O2 interference verification.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Procedure. Determine FID O2
interference as follows, noting that you
may use one or more gas dividers to
create the reference gas concentrations
that are required to perform this
verification:
(1) Select two span reference gases
that contain a C3H8 concentration that
you use to span your analyzers before
emission testing. Use only span gases
that meet the specifications of
§ 1065.750. You may use CH4 span
reference gases for FIDs calibrated on
CH4 with a nonmethane cutter. Select
the two balance gas concentrations such
that the concentrations of O2 and N2
represent the minimum and maximum
O2 concentrations expected during
testing.
(2) Confirm that the FID analyzer
meets all the specifications of
§ 1065.360.
(3) Start and operate the FID analyzer
as you would before an emission test.
Regardless of the FID burner’s air source
during testing, use zero air as the FID
burner’s air source for this verification.
(4) Zero the FID analyzer using the
zero gas used during emission testing.
(5) Span the FID analyzer using a span
gas that you use during emission testing.
(6) Check the zero response of the FID
analyzer using the zero gas used during
emission testing. If the mean zero
response of 30 seconds of sampled data
is within ±0.5% of the span reference
value used in paragraph (d)(5) of this
section, then proceed to the next step;
otherwise restart the procedure at
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(7) Check the analyzer response using
the span gas that has the minimum
concentration of O2 expected during
testing. Record the mean response of 30
seconds of stabilized sample data as
xO2minHC.
(8) Check the zero response of the FID
analyzer using the zero gas used during
emission testing. If the mean zero
response of 30 seconds of stabilized
sample data is within ±0.5% of the span
reference value used in paragraph (d)(5)
of this section, then proceed to the next
step; otherwise restart the procedure at
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(9) Check the analyzer response using
the span gas that has the maximum
concentration of O2 expected during
testing. Record the mean response of 30
seconds of stabilized sample data as
xO2maxHC.
(10) Check the zero response of the
FID analyzer using the zero gas used
during emission testing. If the mean
zero response of 30 seconds of stabilized
sample data is within ±0.5% of the span
reference value used in paragraph (d)(5)
of this section, then proceed to the next
step; otherwise restart the procedure at
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(11) Calculate the percent difference
between xO2maxHC and its reference gas
concentration. Calculate the percent
difference between xO2minHC and its
reference gas concentration. Determine
the maximum percent difference of the
two. This is the O2 interference.
(12) If the O2 interference is within
±1.5%, the FID passes the O2
interference verification; otherwise
perform one or more of the following to
address the deficiency:
(i) Repeat the verification to
determine if a mistake was made during
the procedure.
(ii) Select zero and span gases for
emission testing that contain higher or
lower O2 concentrations and repeat the
verification.
(iii) Adjust FID burner air, fuel, and
sample flow rates. Note that if you
adjust these flow rates on a THC FID to
meet the O2 interference verification,
you must re-verify RFCH4 according to
§ 1065.360. Repeat the O2 interference
verification after adjustment and RFCH4
verification.
(iv) Repair or replace the FID and
repeat the O2 interference verification.
(v) Demonstrate that the deficiency
does not adversely affect your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission standards.
54. Section 1065.365 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.365
fractions.
Nonmethane cutter penetration
(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a
FID analyzer and a nonmethane cutter
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16135
(NMC) to measure methane (CH4),
determine the nonmethane cutter’s
penetration fractions of methane, PFCH4,
and ethane, PFC2H6. As detailed in this
section, these penetration fractions may
be determined as a combination of NMC
penetration fractions and FID analyzer
response factors, depending on your
particular NMC and FID analyzer
configuration. Perform this verification
after installing the nonmethane cutter.
Repeat this verification within 185 days
of testing to verify that the catalytic
activity of the cutter has not
deteriorated. Note that because
nonmethane cutters can deteriorate
rapidly and without warning if they are
operated outside of certain ranges of gas
concentrations and outside of certain
temperature ranges, good engineering
judgment may dictate that you
determine a nonmethane cutter’s
penetration fractions more frequently.
(b) Measurement principles. A
nonmethane cutter is a heated catalyst
that removes nonmethane hydrocarbons
from an exhaust sample stream before
the FID analyzer measures the
remaining hydrocarbon concentration.
An ideal nonmethane cutter would have
a methane penetration fraction, PFCH4,
of 1.000, and the penetration fraction for
all other nonmethane hydrocarbons
would be 0.000, as represented by
PFC2H6. The emission calculations in
§ 1065.660 use the measured values
from this verification to account for less
than ideal NMC performance.
(c) System requirements. We do not
limit NMC penetration fractions to a
certain range. However, we recommend
that you optimize a nonmethane cutter
by adjusting its temperature to achieve
a PFCH4 >0.85 and a PFC2H6 <0.02, as
determined by paragraphs (d), (e), or (f)
of this section, as applicable. If we use
a nonmethane cutter for testing, it will
meet this recommendation. If adjusting
NMC temperature does not result in
achieving both of these specifications
simultaneously, we recommend that
you replace the catalyst material. Use
the most recently determined
penetration values from this section to
calculate HC emissions according to
§ 1065.660 and § 1065.665 as applicable.
(d) Procedure for a FID calibrated
with the NMC. If your FID arrangement
is such that a FID is always calibrated
to measure CH4 with the NMC, then
span that FID with the NMC cutter using
a CH4 span gas, set the product of that
FID’s CH4 response factor and CH4
penetration fraction, RFCH4 · PFCH4,
equal to 1.0 for all emission
calculations, and determine its ethane
(C2H6) penetration fraction, PFC2H6 as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16136
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(1) Select a CH4 gas mixture and a
C2H6 analytical gas mixture and ensure
that both mixtures meet the
specifications of § 1065.750. Select a
CH4 concentration that you would use
for spanning the FID during emission
testing and select a C2H6 concentration
that is typical of the peak NMHC
concentration expected at the
hydrocarbon standard or equal to THC
analyzer’s span value.
(2) Start, operate, and optimize the
nonmethane cutter according to the
manufacturer’s instructions, including
any temperature optimization.
(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer
meets all the specifications of
§ 1065.360.
(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.
(5) Zero and span the FID with the
cutter and use CH4 span gas to span the
FID with the cutter. Note that you must
span the FID on a C1 basis. For example,
if your span gas has a CH4 reference
value of 100 µmol/mol, the correct FID
response to that span gas is 100 µmol/
mol because there is one carbon atom
per CH4 molecule.
(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas
mixture upstream of the nonmethane
cutter.
(7) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the
nonmethane cutter and to account for
the analyzer’s response.
(8) While the analyzer measures a
stable concentration, record 30 seconds
of sampled data. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of these data points.
(9) Divide the mean by the reference
value of C2H6, converted to a C1 basis.
The result is the C2H6 penetration
fraction, PFC2H6. Use this penetration
fraction and the product of the CH4
response factor and CH4 penetration
fraction, RFCH4 · PFCH4, set to 1.0 in
emission calculations according to
§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable.
(e) Procedure for a FID calibrated with
propane, bypassing the NMC. If you use
a FID with an NMC that is calibrated
with propane, C3H8, by bypassing the
NMC, determine penetration fractions as
follows:
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas
mixtures that meet the specifications of
§ 1065.750 with the CH4 concentration
typical of its peak concentration
expected at the hydrocarbon standard
and the C2H6 concentration typical of
the peak total hydrocarbon (THC)
concentration expected at the
hydrocarbon standard or the THC
analyzer span value.
(2) Start and operate the nonmethane
cutter according to the manufacturer’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
instructions, including any temperature
optimization.
(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer
meets all the specifications of
§ 1065.360.
(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.
(5) Zero and span the FID as you
would during emission testing. Span the
FID by bypassing the cutter and by
using C3H8 span gas to span the FID.
Note that you must span the FID on a
C1 basis. For example, if your span gas
has a propane reference value of 100
µmol/mol, the correct FID response to
that span gas is 300 µmol/mol because
there are three carbon atoms per C3H8
molecule.
(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas
mixture upstream of the nonmethane
cutter.
(7) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the
nonmethane cutter and to account for
the analyzer’s response.
(8) While the analyzer measures a
stable concentration, record 30 seconds
of sampled data. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of these data points.
(9) Reroute the flow path to bypass
the nonmethane cutter, introduce the
C2H6 analytical gas mixture to the
bypass, and repeat the steps in
paragraphs (e)(7) through (8) of this
section.
(10) Divide the mean C2H6
concentration measured through the
nonmethane cutter by the mean
concentration measured after bypassing
the nonmethane cutter. The result is the
C2H6 penetration fraction, PFC2H6. Use
this penetration fraction according to
§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable.
(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(e)(6) through (10) of this section, but
with the CH4 analytical gas mixture
instead of C2H6. The result will be the
CH4 penetration fraction, PFCH4. Use
this penetration fraction according to
§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable.
(f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with
methane, bypassing the NMC. If you use
a FID with an NMC that is calibrated
with methane, CH4, by bypassing the
NMC, determine penetration fractions as
follows:
(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas
mixtures that meet the specifications of
§ 1065.750, with the CH4 concentration
typical of its peak concentration
expected at the hydrocarbon standard
and the C2H6 concentration typical of
the peak total hydrocarbon (THC)
concentration expected at the
hydrocarbon standard or the THC
analyzer span value.
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Start and operate the nonmethane
cutter according to the manufacturer’s
instructions, including any temperature
optimization.
(3) Confirm that the FID analyzer
meets all the specifications of
§ 1065.360.
(4) Start and operate the FID analyzer
according to the manufacturer’s
instructions.
(5) Zero and span the FID as you
would during emission testing. Span the
FID with CH4 span gas by bypassing the
cutter. Note that you must span the FID
on a C1 basis. For example, if your span
gas has a methane reference value of 100
µmol/mol, the correct FID response to
that span gas is 100 µmol/mol because
there is one carbon atom per CH4
molecule.
(6) Introduce the C2H6 analytical gas
mixture upstream of the nonmethane
cutter.
(7) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the
nonmethane cutter and to account for
the analyzer’s response.
(8) While the analyzer measures a
stable concentration, record 30 seconds
of sampled data. Calculate the
arithmetic mean of these data points.
(9) Reroute the flow path to bypass
the nonmethane cutter, introduce the
C2H6 analytical gas mixture to the
bypass, and repeat the steps in
paragraphs (e)(7) and (8) of this section.
(10) Divide the mean C2H6
concentration measured through the
nonmethane cutter by the mean
concentration measured after bypassing
the nonmethane cutter. The result is the
C2H6 penetration fraction, PFC2H6. Use
this penetration fraction according to
§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable.
(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs
(e)(6) through (10) of this section, but
with the CH4 analytical gas mixture
instead of C2H6. The result will be the
CH4 penetration fraction, PFCH4. Use
this penetration fraction according to
§ 1065.660 or § 1065.665, as applicable.
55. Section 1065.370 is amended by
revising paragraphs (e) and (g)(1) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench
verification.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) H2O quench verification
procedure. Use the following method to
determine H2O quench, or use good
engineering judgment to develop a
different protocol:
(1) Use PTFE tubing to make
necessary connections.
(2) If the CLD has an operating mode
in which it detects NO-only, as opposed
to total NOX, operate the CLD in the NOonly operating mode.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(3) Measure an NO calibration span
gas that meets the specifications of
§ 1065.750 and is near the maximum
concentration expected during testing.
Record this concentration, xNOdry.
(4) Humidify the NO span gas by
bubbling it through distilled water in a
sealed vessel. We recommend that you
humidify the gas to the highest sample
dewpoint that you estimate during
emission sampling.
(5) Downstream of the vessel,
maintain the humidified gas
temperature at least 5 °C above its
dewpoint.
(6) Introduce the humidified gas
upstream of any sample dryer, if one is
used during testing.
(7) Measure the humidified gas
dewpoint, Tdew, and pressure, ptotal, as
close as possible to the inlet of the
analyzer, or to the inlet of the sample
dryer, if one is used.
(8) Allow time for the analyzer
response to stabilize. Stabilization time
may include time to purge the transfer
line and to account for analyzer
response.
(9) While the analyzer measures the
sample’s concentration, record the
analyzer’s output for 30 seconds.
Calculate the arithmetic mean of these
data. This mean is xNOmeas.
(10) If your CLD is not equipped with
a sample dryer, set xNOwet equal to
xNOmeas from paragraph (e)(9) of this
section.
(11) If your CLD is equipped with a
sample dryer, determine xNOwet from
xNOmeas by correcting for the removed
water according to § 1065.645. Use the
amount of water at the sample dryer
outlet as xH2Omeas for this calculation.
Refer to § 1065.145(d)(2) and use the
humidified gas dewpoint, Tdew, and
pressure, ptotal, to determine xH2O.
(12) Use xNOwet to calculate the
quench according to § 1065.675.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your NOX sampling system and
your emission calculations procedures,
the combined CO2 and H2O interference
for your NOX CLD analyzer always
affects your brake-specific NOX
emission results within no more than
±1.0% of the applicable NOX standard.
*
*
*
*
*
56. Section 1065.372 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.372 NDUV analyzer HC and H2O
interference verification.
*
*
*
(e) * * *
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
*
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your NOX sampling system and
your emission calculations procedures,
the combined HC and H2O interference
for your NOX NDUV analyzer always
affects your brake-specific NOX
emission results by less than 0.5% of
the applicable NOX standard.
*
*
*
*
*
57. Section 1065.376 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.376
Chiller NO2 penetration.
(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a
chiller to dry a sample upstream of a
NOX measurement instrument, but you
don’t use an NO2-to-NO converter
upstream of the chiller, you must
perform this verification for chiller NO2
penetration. Perform this verification
after initial installation and after major
maintenance.
(b) Measurement principles. A chiller
removes water, which can otherwise
interfere with a NOX measurement.
However, liquid water remaining in an
improperly designed chiller can remove
NO2 from the sample. If a chiller is used
without an NO2-to-NO converter
upstream, it could remove NO2 from the
sample prior NOX measurement.
(c) System requirements. A chiller
must allow for measuring at least 95%
of the total NO2 at the maximum
expected concentration of NO2.
(d) Procedure. Use the following
procedure to verify chiller performance:
(1) Instrument setup. Follow the
analyzer and chiller manufacturers’
start-up and operating instructions.
Adjust the analyzer and chiller as
needed to optimize performance.
(2) Equipment setup and data
collection. (i) Zero and span the total
NOX gas analyzer(s) as you would before
emission testing.
(ii) Select an NO2 calibration gas,
balance gas of dry air, that has an NO2
concentration within ±5% of the
maximum NO2 concentration expected
during testing.
(iii) Overflow this calibration gas at
the gas sampling system’s probe or
overflow fitting. Allow for stabilization
of the total NOX response, accounting
only for transport delays and instrument
response.
(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds
of recorded total NOX data and record
this value as xNOxref.
(v) Stop flowing the NO2 calibration
gas.
(vi) Next saturate the sampling system
by overflowing a dewpoint generator’s
output, set at a dewpoint of 50 °C, to the
gas sampling system’s probe or overflow
fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator’s
output through the sampling system and
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16137
chiller for at least 10 minutes until the
chiller is expected to be removing a
constant rate of water.
(vii) Immediately switch back to
overflowing the NO2 calibration gas
used to establish xNOxref. Allow for
stabilization of the total NOX response,
accounting only for transport delays and
instrument response. Calculate the
mean of 30 seconds of recorded total
NOX data and record this value as
xNOxmeas.
(viii) Correct xNOxmeas to xNOxdry based
upon the residual water vapor that
passed through the chiller at the
chiller’s outlet temperature and
pressure.
(3) Performance evaluation. If xNOxdry
is less than 95% of xNOxref, repair or
replace the chiller.
(e) Exceptions. The following
exceptions apply:
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your NOX sampling system and
your emission calculations procedures,
the chiller always affects your brakespecific NOX emission results by less
than 0.5% of the applicable NOX
standard.
(2) You may use a chiller that you
determine does not meet this
verification, as long as you try to correct
the problem and the measurement
deficiency does not adversely affect
your ability to show that engines
comply with all applicable emission
standards.
58. Section 1065.378 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d) and (e)(1) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.378 NO2-to-NO converter
conversion verification.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Procedure. Use the following
procedure to verify the performance of
a NO2-to-NO converter:
(1) Instrument setup. Follow the
analyzer and NO2-to-NO converter
manufacturers’ start-up and operating
instructions. Adjust the analyzer and
converter as needed to optimize
performance.
(2) Equipment setup. Connect an
ozonator’s inlet to a zero-air or oxygen
source and connect its outlet to one port
of a three-way tee fitting. Connect an
NO span gas to another port, and
connect the NO2-to-NO converter inlet
to the last port.
(3) Adjustments. Take the following
steps to make adjustments:
(i) With the NO2-to-NO converter in
the bypass mode (i.e., NO mode) and the
ozonator off, adjust the NO and zero-gas
flows so the NO concentration at the
analyzer is at the peak total NOX
concentration expected during testing.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16138
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(ii) With the NO2-to-NO converter still
in the bypass mode, turn on the
ozonator and adjust the ozonator so the
NO concentration measured by the
analyzer decreases by the same amount
as maximum concentration of NO2
expected during testing. This ensures
that the ozonator is generating NO2 at
the maximum concentration expected
during testing.
(4) Data collection. Maintain the
ozonator adjustment in paragraph (d)(3)
of this section, and keep the NOX
analyzer in the NO only mode (i.e.,
bypass the NO2-to-NO converter).
(i) Allow for stabilization, accounting
only for transport delays and instrument
response.
(ii) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds
of sampled data from the analyzer and
record this value as xNOxref.
(iii) Switch the analyzer to the total
NOX mode (that is, sample with the
NO2-to-NO converter) and allow for
stabilization, accounting only for
transport delays and instrument
response.
(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds
of sampled data from the analyzer and
record this value as xNOxmeas.
(v) Turn off the ozonator and allow for
stabilization, accounting only for
transport delays and instrument
response.
(vi) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds
of sampled data from the analyzer and
record this value as xNOxref.
(5) Performance evaluation. Divide
the quantity of (xNOxmeas ¥xNOref) by the
quantity of (xNOref ¥xNOref). If the result
is less than 95%, repair or replace the
NO2-to-NO converter.
(e) * * *
(1) You may omit this verification if
you can show by engineering analysis
that for your NOX sampling system and
your emission calculations procedures,
the converter always affects your brakespecific NOX emission results by less
than 0.5% of the applicable NOX
standard.
*
*
*
*
*
59. Section 1065.390 is amended by
revising paragraphs (d)(8) and (d)(9) and
adding paragraph (d)(10) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.390 PM balance verifications and
weighing process verification.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
In this case, you do not have to include
the contaminated reference media when
determining compliance with paragraph
(d)(10) of this section.
(10) If any of the reference masses
change by more than that allowed under
this paragraph (d), invalidate all PM
results that were determined between
the two times that the reference masses
were determined. If you discarded
reference PM sample media according to
paragraph (d)(9) of this section, you
must still have at least one reference
mass difference that meets the criteria in
this paragraph (d). Otherwise, you must
invalidate all PM results that were
determined between the two times that
the reference masses were determined.
Subpart E—[Amended]
60. Section 1065.405 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (e)
introductory text to read as follows:
§ 1065.405 Test engine preparation and
maintenance.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Run the test engine, with all
emission control systems operating,
long enough to stabilize emission levels
to appropriately apply deterioration
factors. You must use the same
stabilization procedures for all
emission-data engines for which you
apply the same deterioration factors so
that all low-hour emission-data engines
are consistent with the low-hour engine
used to develop the deterioration factor.
(1) Unless otherwise specified in the
standard-setting part, you may consider
emission levels stable without
measurement if you accumulate 12 h of
operation for a spark-ignition engine or
125 h for a compression-ignition engine.
(2) If the engine needs more or less
operation to stabilize emission levels,
record your reasons and the methods for
doing this, and give us these records if
we ask for them.
(3) You may stabilize emissions from
a catalytic exhaust aftertreatment device
by operating it on an engine that is
different from the test engine, but only
where it is consistent with good
engineering judgment. You may
alternatively stabilize emissions from a
catalytic exhaust aftertreatment device
by operating it on an engine-exhaust
simulator if it is allowed in the
standard-setting part, or if we have
issued prior guidance, or if we
otherwise approve of the use of an
engine-exhaust simulator in advance.
This process of stabilizing emissions
from a catalytic exhaust aftertreatment
device is often called ‘‘degreening’’. Be
sure to consider whether degreening
under this paragraph (b)(3) will
adversely affect your ability to develop
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and apply appropriate deterioration
factors.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) If your engine will be used in a
vehicle equipped with a canister for
storing evaporative hydrocarbons for
eventual combustion in the engine and
the test sequence involves a cold-start or
hot-start duty cycle, attach a canister to
the engine before running an emission
test. You may omit using an evaporative
canister for any hot-stabilized duty
cycles. You may request to omit using
an evaporative canister during testing if
you can show that it would not affect
your ability to show compliance with
the applicable emission standards. You
do not have to accumulate engine
operation before emission testing with
an installed canister. Prior to an
emission test, use the following steps to
attach a canister to your engine:
*
*
*
*
*
61. The heading of subpart F is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart F—Performing an Emission
Test Over Specified Duty Cycles
62. Section 1065.501 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.501
Overview.
(a) Use the procedures detailed in this
subpart to measure engine emissions
over a specified duty cycle. Refer to
subpart J of this part for field test
procedures that describe how to
measure emissions during in-use engine
operation. This section describes how
to:
(1) Map your engine, if applicable, by
recording specified speed and torque
data, as measured from the engine’s
primary output shaft.
(2) Transform normalized duty cycles
into reference duty cycles for your
engine by using an engine map.
(3) Prepare your engine, equipment,
and measurement instruments for an
emission test.
(4) Perform pre-test procedures to
verify proper operation of certain
equipment and analyzers.
(5) Record pre-test data.
(6) Start or restart the engine and
sampling systems.
(7) Sample emissions throughout the
duty cycle.
(8) Record post-test data.
(9) Perform post-test procedures to
verify proper operation of certain
equipment and analyzers.
(10) Weigh PM samples.
(b) An emission test generally consists
of measuring emissions and other
parameters while an engine follows one
or more duty cycles that are specified in
the standard-setting part. There are two
general types of duty cycles:
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(1) Transient cycles. Transient duty
cycles are typically specified in the
standard-setting part as a second-bysecond sequence of speed commands
and torque (or power) commands.
Operate an engine over a transient cycle
such that the speed and torque of the
engine’s primary output shaft follows
the target values. Proportionally sample
emissions and other parameters and use
the calculations in subpart G of this part
to calculate emissions. Start a transient
test according to the standard-setting
part, as follows:
(i) A cold-start transient cycle where
you start to measure emissions just
before starting an engine that has not
been warmed up.
(ii) A hot-start transient cycle where
you start to measure emissions just
before starting a warmed-up engine.
(iii) A hot running transient cycle
where you start to measure emissions
after an engine is started, warmed up,
and running.
(2) Steady-state cycles. Steady-state
duty cycles are typically specified in the
standard-setting part as a list of discrete
operating points (modes or notches),
where each operating point and has one
value of a speed command and one
value of a torque (or power) command.
Ramped-modal cycles for steady-state
testing also list test times for each mode
and ramps of speed and torque to follow
between modes. Start a steady-state
cycle as a hot running test, where you
start to measure emissions after an
engine is started, warmed up and
running. You may run a steady-state
duty cycle as a discrete-mode cycle or
a ramped-modal cycle, as follows:
(i) Discrete-mode cycles. Before
emission sampling, stabilize an engine
at the first discrete mode. Sample
emissions and other parameters for that
mode and then stop emission sampling.
Record mean values for that mode, and
then stabilize the engine at the next
mode. Continue to sample each mode
discretely and calculate weighted
emission results according to the
standard-setting part.
(ii) Ramped-modal cycles. Perform
ramped-modal cycles similar to the way
you would perform transient cycles,
except that ramped-modal cycles
involve mostly steady-state engine
operation. Perform a ramped-modal
cycle as a sequence of second-by-second
speed commands and torque (or power)
commands. Proportionally sample
emissions and other parameters during
the cycle and use the calculations in
subpart G of this part to calculate
emissions.
(c) Other subparts in this part identify
how to select and prepare an engine for
testing (subpart E), how to perform the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
required engine service accumulation
(subpart E), and how to calculate
emission results (subpart G).
(d) Subpart J of this part describes
how to perform field testing.
63. Section 1065.510 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.510
Engine mapping.
(a) Applicability, scope, and
frequency. An engine map is a data set
that consists of a series of paired data
points that represent the maximum
brake torque versus engine speed,
measured at the engine’s primary output
shaft. Map your engine if the standardsetting part requires engine mapping to
generate a duty cycle for your engine
configuration. Map your engine while it
is connected to a dynamometer or other
device that can absorb work output from
the engine’s primary output shaft
according to § 1065.110. Configure any
auxiliary work inputs and outputs such
as hybrid, turbo-compounding, or
thermoelectric systems to represent
their in-use configurations, and use the
same configuration for emission testing.
See Figure 1 of § 1065.210. This may
involve configuring initial states of
charge and rates and times of auxiliarywork inputs and outputs. We
recommend that you contact the
Designated Compliance Officer before
testing to determine how you should
configure any auxiliary-work inputs and
outputs. Use the most recent engine
map to transform a normalized duty
cycle from the standard-setting part to a
reference duty cycle specific to your
engine. Normalized duty cycles are
specified in the standard-setting part.
You may update an engine map at any
time by repeating the engine-mapping
procedure. You must map or re-map an
engine before a test if any of the
following apply:
(1) If you have not performed an
initial engine map.
(2) If the atmospheric pressure near
the engine’s air inlet is not within ±5
kPa of the atmospheric pressure
recorded at the time of the last engine
map.
(3) If the engine or emission-control
system has undergone changes that
might affect maximum torque
performance. This includes changing
the configuration of auxiliary work
inputs and outputs.
(4) If you capture an incomplete map
on your first attempt or you do not
complete a map within the specified
time tolerance. You may repeat mapping
as often as necessary to capture a
complete map within the specified time.
(b) Mapping variable-speed engines.
Map variable-speed engines as follows:
(1) Record the atmospheric pressure.
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16139
(2) Warm up the engine by operating
it. We recommend operating the engine
at any speed and at approximately 75%
of its expected maximum power.
Continue the warm-up until the engine
coolant, block, or head absolute
temperature is within ±2% of its mean
value for at least 2 min or until the
engine thermostat controls engine
temperature.
(3) Operate the engine at its warm idle
speed, within manufacturer tolerances,
if specified. Apply a representative
amount of torque to the engine’s
primary output shaft if nonzero torque
at idle speed is representative of its inuse operation. For example output
torque at idle speed might normally
occur if the engine is always coupled to
a device such as a pump or hydrostatic
drive that always applies some amount
of nonzero torque at idle. Record at least
30 values of speed and use the mean of
those values as measured idle speed for
cycle generation.
(4) Set operator demand to maximum
and control engine speed at (95 ±1)% of
its warm idle speed for at least 15
seconds. For engines with reference
duty cycles whose lowest speed is
greater than warm idle speed, you may
start the map at (95 ±1)% of the lowest
reference speed.
(5) Perform one of the following:
(i) For any engine subject only to
steady-state duty cycles (i.e., discretemode or ramped-modal), you may
perform an engine map by using
discrete speeds. Select at least 20 evenly
spaced setpoints between warm idle and
the highest speed above maximum
mapped power at which (50 to 75)% of
maximum power occurs. If this highest
speed is unsafe or unrepresentative (e.g.,
for ungoverned engines), use good
engineering judgment to map up to the
maximum safe speed or the maximum
representative speed. At each setpoint,
stabilize speed and allow torque to
stabilize. Record the mean speed and
torque at each setpoint. We recommend
that you stabilize an engine for at least
15 seconds at each setpoint and record
the mean feedback speed and torque of
the last (4 to 6) seconds. Use linear
interpolation to determine intermediate
speeds and torques. Use this series of
speeds and torques to generate the
power map as described in paragraph (e)
of this section.
(ii) For any variable-speed engine, you
may perform an engine map by using a
continuous sweep of speed by
continuing to record the mean feedback
speed and torque at 1 Hz or more
frequently and increasing speed at a
constant rate such that it takes (4 to 6)
min to sweep from 95% of warm idle to
the highest speed above maximum
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16140
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
power at which (50 to 75)% of
maximum power occurs. If this highest
speed is unsafe or unrepresentative (e.g.,
for ungoverned engines), use good
engineering judgment to map up to the
maximum safe speed or the maximum
representative speed. Stop recording
after you complete the sweep. From the
series of mean speed and maximum
torque values, use linear interpolation to
determine intermediate values. Use this
series of speeds and torques to generate
the power map as described in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Negative torque mapping. If your
engine is subject to a reference duty
cycle that specifies negative torque
values (i.e., engine motoring), generate a
motoring map by any of the following
procedures:
(1) Multiply the positive torques from
your map by ¥40%. Use linear
interpolation to determine intermediate
values.
(2) Map the amount of negative torque
required to motor the engine by
repeating paragraph (b) of this section
with minimum operator demand.
(3) Determine the amount of negative
torque required to motor the engine at
the following two points: at warm idle
and at the highest speed above
maximum power at which (50 to 75)%
of maximum power occurs. If this
highest speed is unsafe or
unrepresentative (e.g., for ungoverned
engines), use good engineering
judgment to map up to the maximum
safe speed or the maximum
representative speed. Operate the engine
at these two points at minimum
operator demand. Use linear
interpolation to determine intermediate
values.
(d) Mapping constant-speed engines.
For constant-speed engines, generate a
map as follows:
(1) Record the atmospheric pressure.
(2) Warm up the engine by operating
it. We recommend operating the engine
at approximately 75% of the engine’s
expected maximum power. Continue
the warm-up until the engine coolant,
block, or head absolute temperature is
within ±2% of its mean value for at least
2 min or until the engine thermostat
controls engine temperature.
(3) You may operate the engine with
a production constant-speed governor or
simulate a constant-speed governor by
controlling engine speed with an
operator demand control system
described in § 1065.110. Use either
isochronous or speed-droop governor
operation, as appropriate.
(4) With the governor or simulated
governor controlling speed using
operator demand, operate the engine at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
no-load governed speed (at high speed,
not low idle) for at least 15 seconds.
(5) Record at 1 Hz the mean of
feedback speed and torque. Use the
dynamometer to increase torque at a
constant rate. Unless the standardsetting part specifies otherwise,
complete the map such that it takes (2
to 4) min to sweep from no-load
governed speed to the lowest speed
below maximum mapped power at
which the engine develops (85–95)% of
maximum mapped power. You may
map your engine to lower speeds. Stop
recording after you complete the sweep.
Use this series of speeds and torques to
generate the power map as described in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Power mapping. For all engines,
create a power-versus-speed map by
transforming torque and speed values to
corresponding power values. Use the
mean values from the recorded map
data. Do not use any interpolated
values. Multiply each torque by its
corresponding speed and apply the
appropriate conversion factors to arrive
at units of power (kW). Interpolate
intermediate power values between
these power values, which were
calculated from the recorded map data.
(f) Measured and declared test speeds
and torques. You may use test speeds
and torques that you declare instead of
measured speeds and torques if they
meet the criteria in this paragraph (f).
Otherwise, you must use speeds and
torques derived from the engine map.
(1) Measured speeds and torques.
Determine the applicable speeds and
torques according to § 1065.610:
(i) Measured maximum test speed for
variable-speed engines.
(ii) Measured maximum test torque
for constant-speed engines.
(iii) Measured ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’
speeds for steady-state tests.
(iv) Measured intermediate speed for
steady-state tests.
(2) Required declared speeds. You
must declare the following speeds:
(i) Warmed-up, low-idle speed for
variable-speed engines. Declare this
speed in a way that is representative of
in-use operation. For example, if your
engine is typically connected to an
automatic transmission or a hydrostatic
transmission, declare this speed at the
idle speed at which your engine
operates when the transmission is
engaged.
(ii) Warmed-up, no-load, high-idle
speed for constant-speed engines.
(3) Optional declared speeds. You
may declare an enhanced idle speed
according to § 1065.610. You may use a
declared value for any of the following
as long as the declared value is within
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(97.5 to 102.5)% of its corresponding
measured value:
(i) Measured maximum test speed for
variable-speed engines.
(ii) Measured intermediate speed for
steady-state tests.
(iii) Measured ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’
speeds for steady-state tests.
(4) Declared torques. You may declare
an enhanced idle torque according to
§ 1065.610. You may declare maximum
test torque as long as it is within (95 to
100)% of the measured value.
(g) Other mapping procedures. You
may use other mapping procedures if
you believe the procedures specified in
this section are unsafe or
unrepresentative for your engine. Any
alternate techniques you use must
satisfy the intent of the specified
mapping procedures, which is to
determine the maximum available
torque at all engine speeds that occur
during a duty cycle. Identify any
deviations from this section’s mapping
procedures when you submit data to us.
64. Section 1065.512 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.512
Duty cycle generation.
(a) Generate duty cycles according to
this section if the standard-setting part
requires engine mapping to generate a
duty cycle for your engine
configuration. The standard-setting part
generally defines applicable duty cycles
in a normalized format. A normalized
duty cycle consists of a sequence of
paired values for speed and torque or for
speed and power.
(b) Transform normalized values of
speed, torque, and power using the
following conventions:
(1) Engine speed for variable-speed
engines. For variable-speed engines,
normalized speed may be expressed as
a percentage between idle speed and
maximum test speed, ƒntest, or speed may
be expressed by referring to a defined
speed by name, such as ‘‘warm idle,’’
‘‘intermediate speed,’’ or ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘B,’’ or
‘‘C’’ speed. Section 1065.610 describes
how to transform these normalized
values into a sequence of reference
speeds, ƒnref. Note that the cyclevalidation criteria in § 1065.514 allow
an engine to govern itself at its in-use
idle speed. This allowance permits you
to test engines with enhanced-idle
devices and to simulate the effects of
transmissions such as automatic
transmissions. For example, an
enhanced-idle device might be an idle
speed value that is normally
commanded only under cold-start
conditions to quickly warm up the
engine and aftertreatment devices.
(2) Engine torque for variable-speed
engines. For variable-speed engines,
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
normalized torque is expressed as a
percentage of the mapped torque at the
corresponding reference speed. Section
1065.610 describes how to transform
normalized torques into a sequence of
reference torques, Tref. Section 1065.610
also describes under what conditions
you may command Tref greater than the
reference torque you calculated from a
normalized duty cycle. This provision
permits you to command Tref values
representing curb-idle transmission
torque (CITT). For any negative torque
commands, command minimum
operator demand and use the
dynamometer to control engine speed to
the reference speed. Note that the cyclevalidation criteria in § 1065.514 allow
an engine to pass cycle statistics for
torque for any data points recorded
during negative torque commands. Also,
use the maximum recorded torque at the
minimum mapped speed as the
maximum torque for any reference
speed at or below the minimum mapped
speed.
(3) Engine torque for constant-speed
engines. For constant-speed engines,
normalized torque is expressed as a
percentage of maximum test torque,
Ttest. Section 1065.610 describes how to
transform normalized torques into a
sequence of reference torques, Tref.
Section 1065.610 also describes under
what conditions you may command Tref
greater than 0 Nm when a normalized
duty cycle specifies a 0% torque
command.
(4) Engine power. For all engines,
normalized power is expressed as a
percentage of mapped power at
maximum test speed, ƒntest. Section
1065.610 describes how to transform
these normalized values into a sequence
of reference powers, Pref. Convert these
reference powers to reference speeds
and torques for operator demand and
dynamometer control.
(c) For variable-speed engines,
command reference speeds and torques
sequentially to perform a duty cycle.
Issue speed and torque commands at a
frequency of at least 5 Hz for transient
cycles and at least 1 Hz for steady-state
cycles (i.e., discrete-mode and rampedmodal). Linearly interpolate between
the 1 Hz reference values specified in
the standard-setting part to determine
more frequently issued reference speeds
and torques. During an emission test,
record the reference speeds and torques
and the feedback speeds and torques at
the same frequency. Use these recorded
values to calculate cycle-validation
statistics and total work.
(d) For constant-speed engines,
operate the engine with the same
production governor you used to map
the engine in § 1065.510 or simulate the
in-use operation of a governor the same
way you simulated it to map the engine
in § 1065.510. Command reference
torque values sequentially to perform a
duty cycle. Issue torque commands at a
frequency of at least 5 Hz for transient
cycles and at least 1 Hz for steady-state
cycles (i.e., discrete-mode, rampedmodal). Linearly interpolate between
the 1 Hz reference values specified in
the standard-setting part to determine
more frequently issued reference torque
values. During an emission test, record
the reference torques and the feedback
speeds and torques at the same
frequency. Use these recorded values to
calculate cycle-validation statistics and
total work.
(e) You may perform practice duty
cycles with the test engine to optimize
operator demand and dynamometer
controls to meet the cycle-validation
criteria specified in § 1065.514.
65. Section 1065.514 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.514 Cycle-validation criteria for
operation over specified duty cycles.
Validate the execution of your duty
cycle according to this section unless
the standard-setting part specifies
16141
otherwise. This section describes how to
determine if the engine’s operation
during the test adequately matched the
reference duty cycle. This section
applies only to speed, torque, and
power from the engine’s primary output
shaft. Other work inputs and outputs are
not subject to cycle-validation criteria.
For any data required in this section,
use the duty cycle reference and
feedback values that you recorded
during a test interval.
(a) Testing performed by EPA. Our
tests must meet the specifications of
paragraph (g) of this section, unless we
determine that failing to meet the
specifications is related to engine
performance rather than to
shortcomings of the dynamometer or
other laboratory equipment.
(b) Testing performed by
manufacturers. Emission tests that meet
the specifications of paragraph (g) of
this section satisfy the standard-setting
part’s requirements for duty cycles. You
may ask to use a dynamometer or other
laboratory equipment that cannot meet
those specifications. We will approve
your request as long as using the
alternate equipment does not adversely
affect your ability to show compliance
with the applicable emission standards.
(c) Time-alignment. Because time lag
between feedback values and the
reference values may bias cyclevalidation results, you may advance or
delay the entire sequence of feedback
engine speed and/or torque pairs to
synchronize them with the reference
sequence.
(d) Omitting additional points.
Besides engine cranking, you may omit
additional points from cycle-validation
statistics as described in the following
table:
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.514.—PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR OMITTING POINTS FROM DUTY-CYCLE REGRESSION STATISTICS
When operator demand is at its
. . .
you may omit . . .
if . . .
For reference duty cycles that are specified in terms of speed and torque (fnref, Tref)
power and torque ..........................
power and speed ...........................
minimum ..........................................
maximum .........................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
minimum ..........................................
minimum ..........................................
power and either torque or speed
power and either torque or speed
Tref < 0% (motoring).
fnref = 0% (idle speed) and Tref = 0% (idle torque) and Tref ¥ (2% ·
Tmax mapped) < T < Tref + (2% · Tmax mapped).
fn > fnref or T > Tref but not if fn > fnref and T > Tref.
fn < fnref or T < Tref but not if fn < fnref and T < Tref.
For reference duty cycles that are specified in terms of speed and power (fnref, Pref)
minimum ..........................................
minimum ..........................................
power and torque ..........................
power and speed ...........................
minimum ..........................................
power and either torque or speed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4701
Pref < 0% (motoring).
fnref = 0% (idle speed) and Pref = 0% (idle power) and Pref ¥ (2% ·
Pmax mapped) < P < Pref + (2 % · Pmax mapped).
fn > fnref or P > Pref but not if fn > fnref and P > Pref.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16142
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.514.—PERMISSIBLE CRITERIA FOR OMITTING POINTS FROM DUTY-CYCLE REGRESSION STATISTICS—
Continued
When operator demand is at its
. . .
you may omit . . .
if . . .
maximum .........................................
power and either torque or speed
fn < fnref or P < Pref but not if fn < fref and P < Pref.
(e) Statistical parameters. Use the
remaining points to calculate regression
statistics described in § 1065.602.
Round calculated regression statistics to
the same number of significant digits as
the criteria to which they are compared.
Refer to Table 2 of § 1065.514 for the
default criteria and refer to the standardsetting part to determine if there are
other criteria for your engine. Calculate
the following regression statistics:
(1) Slopes for feedback speed, a1fn,
feedback torque, a1T, and feedback
power a1P.
(2) Intercepts for feedback speed, a0fn,
feedback torque, a0T, and feedback
power a0P.
(3) Standard estimates of error for
feedback speed, SEEfn, feedback torque,
SEET, and feedback power SEEP.
(4) Coefficients of determination for
feedback speed, r2fn, feedback torque,
r2T, and feedback power r2P.
(f) Cycle-validation criteria. Unless
the standard-setting part specifies
otherwise, use the following criteria to
validate a duty cycle:
(1) For variable-speed engines, apply
all the statistical criteria in Table 2 of
this section.
(2) For constant-speed engines, apply
only the statistical criteria for torque in
Table 2 of this section.
TABLE 2 OF § 1065.514.—DEFAULT STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES
Parameter
Speed
Torque
Power
Slope, a1 ........................................
Absolute value of intercept, |a0| .....
0.950 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................
≤ 10% of warm idle ......................
Standard error of estimate, SEE ...
≤ 5.0% of maximum test speed ...
Coefficient of determination, r2 ......
≥ 0.970 ..........................................
0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030 ........................
≤ 2.0% of maximum mapped
torque.
≤ 10% of maximum mapped
torque.
≥ 0.850 ..........................................
0.830 ≤ a1 ≤ 1.030.
≤ 2.0% of maximum mapped
power.
≤ 10% of maximum mapped
power.
≥ 0.910.
66. Section 1065.520 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b), (f)(1), (g)
introductory text, and (g)(7)(iii) to read
as follows:
§ 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures
and pre-test data collection.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Unless the standard-setting part
specifies different tolerances, verify that
ambient conditions are within the
following tolerances before the test:
(1) Ambient temperature of (20 to 30)
°C.
(2) Intake air temperature of (20 to 30)
°C upstream of all engine components.
(3) Atmospheric pressure of (80.000 to
103.325) kPa and within ±5% of the
value recorded at the time of the last
engine map.
(4) Dilution air conditions as specified
in § 1065.140.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(1) Start the engine and use good
engineering judgment to bring it to one
of the following:
(i) 100% torque at any speed above its
peak-torque speed.
(ii) 100% operator demand.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) After the last practice or
preconditioning cycle before an
emission test, verify the amount of
nonmethane contamination in the
exhaust and background HC sampling
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
systems. You may omit verifying the
contamination of a background HC
sampling system if its contamination
was verified within ten days before
testing. For any NMHC measurement
system that involves separately
measuring methane and subtracting it
from a THC measurement, verify the
amount of HC contamination using only
the THC analyzer response. There is no
need to operate any separate methane
analyzer for this verification. Perform
this verification as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(7) * * *
(iii) 2 µmol/mol.
*
*
*
*
*
67. Section 1065.525 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.525 Engine starting, restarting,
optional repeating of void discrete modes
and shutdown.
(a) Start the engine using one of the
following methods:
(1) Start the engine as recommended
in the owners manual using a
production starter motor or air-start
system and either an adequately charged
battery, a suitable power supply, or a
suitable compressed air source.
(2) Use the dynamometer to start the
engine. To do this, motor the engine
within ±25% of its typical in-use
cranking speed. Stop cranking within 1
second of starting the engine.
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(b) If the engine does not start after 15
seconds of cranking, stop cranking and
determine why the engine failed to start,
unless the owners manual or the
service-repair manual describes the
longer cranking time as normal.
(c) Respond to engine stalling with
the following steps:
(1) If the engine stalls during warmup before emission sampling begins,
restart the engine and continue warmup.
(2) If the engine stalls during
preconditioning before emission
sampling begins, restart the engine and
restart the preconditioning sequence.
(3) If the engine stalls at any time after
emission sampling begins for a transient
test or ramped-modal cycle test, the test
is void.
(4) Except as described in paragraph
(d) of this section, void the test if the
engine stalls at any time after emission
sampling begins.
(d) If emission sampling is interrupted
during one of the modes of a discretemode test, you may void the results only
for that individual mode and perform
the following steps to continue the test:
(i) If the engine has stalled, restart the
engine.
(ii) Use good engineering judgment to
restart the test sequence using the
appropriate steps in § 1065.530(b).
(iii) Precondition the engine by
operating at the previous mode for
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
approximately the same amount of time
it operated at that mode for the last
emission measurement.
(iv) Advance to the mode at which the
engine stalled and continue with the
duty cycle as specified in the standardsetting part.
(v) Complete the remainder of the test
according to the requirements in this
subpart.
(e) Shut down the engine according to
the manufacturer’s specifications.
68. Section 1065.530 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1065.530
Emission test sequence.
(a) Time the start of testing as follows:
(1) Perform one of the following if you
precondition sampling systems as
described in § 1065.520(f):
(i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut
down the engine. Unless the standardsetting part specifies that you may only
perform a natural engine cooldown, you
may perform a forced engine cooldown.
Use good engineering judgment to set
up systems to send cooling air across
the engine, to send cool oil through the
engine lubrication system, to remove
heat from coolant through the engine
cooling system, and to remove heat from
any exhaust aftertreatment systems. In
the case of a forced aftertreatment
cooldown, good engineering judgment
would indicate that you not start
flowing cooling air until the
aftertreatment system has cooled below
its catalytic activation temperature. For
platinum-group metal catalysts, this
temperature is about 200 °C. Once the
aftertreatment system has naturally
cooled below its catalytic activation
temperature, good engineering judgment
would indicate that you use clean air
with a temperature of at least 15 °C, and
direct the air through the aftertreatment
system in the normal direction of
exhaust flow. Do not use any cooling
procedure that results in
unrepresentative emissions (see
§ 1065.10(c)(1)). You may start a coldstart duty cycle when the temperatures
of an engine’s lubricant, coolant, and
aftertreatment systems are all between
(20 and 30) °C.
(ii) For hot-start emission
measurements, shut down the engine.
Start the hot-start duty cycle as
specified in the standard-setting part.
(iii) For testing that involves hotstabilized emission measurements, such
as any steady-state testing, you may
continue to operate the engine at
maximum test speed and 100% torque
if that is the first operating point.
Otherwise, operate the engine at warm
idle or the first operating point of the
duty cycle. In any case, start the
emission test within 10 min after you
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
complete the preconditioning
procedure.
(2) If you do not precondition
sampling systems, perform one of the
following:
(i) For cold-start duty cycles, prepare
the engine according to paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section.
(ii) For hot-start emission
measurements, first operate the engine
at any speed above peak-torque speed
and at (65 to 85)% of maximum mapped
power until either the engine coolant,
block, or head absolute temperature is
within ±2% of its mean value for at least
2 min or until the engine thermostat
controls engine temperature. Shut down
the engine. Start the duty cycle within
20 min of engine shutdown.
(iii) For testing that involves hotstabilized emission measurements, bring
the engine either to warm idle or the
first operating point of the duty cycle.
Start the test within 10 min of achieving
temperature stability. Determine
temperature stability either as the point
at which the engine coolant, block, or
head absolute temperature is within
±2% of its mean value for at least 2 min,
or as the point at which the engine
thermostat controls engine temperature.
(b) Take the following steps before
emission sampling begins:
(1) For batch sampling, connect clean
storage media, such as evacuated bags or
tare-weighed filters.
(2) Start all measurement instruments
according to the instrument
manufacturer’s instructions and using
good engineering judgment.
(3) Start dilution systems, sample
pumps, cooling fans, and the datacollection system.
(4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat
exchangers in the sampling system to
within their operating temperature
tolerances for a test.
(5) Allow heated or cooled
components such as sample lines,
filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize
at their operating temperatures.
(6) Verify that there are no significant
vacuum-side leaks according to
§ 1065.345.
(7) Adjust the sample flow rates to
desired levels, using bypass flow, if
desired.
(8) Zero or re-zero any electronic
integrating devices, before the start of
any test interval.
(9) Select gas analyzer ranges. You
may automatically or manually switch
gas analyzer ranges during a test only if
switching is performed by changing the
span over which the digital resolution of
the instrument is applied. During a test
you may not switch the gains of an
analyzer’s analog operational
amplifier(s).
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16143
(10) Zero and span all continuous
analyzers using NIST-traceable gases
that meet the specifications of
§ 1065.750. Span FID analyzers on a
carbon number basis of one (1), C1. For
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of
concentration 200 µmol/mol, span the
FID to respond with a value of 600
µmol/mol. Span FID analyzers
consistently with the determination of
their respective response factors, RF,
and penetration fractions, PF, according
to § 1065.365.
(11) We recommend that you verify
gas analyzer responses after zeroing and
spanning by sampling a calibration gas
that has a concentration near one-half of
the span gas concentration. Based on the
results and good engineering judgment,
you may decide whether or not to rezero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas
analyzer before starting a test.
(12) If you correct for dilution air
background concentrations of engine
exhaust constituents, start measuring
and recording background
concentrations.
(13) Drain any condensate from the
intake air system and close any intake
air condensate drains that are not
normally open during in-use operation.
(c) Start testing as follows:
(1) If an engine is already running and
warmed up, and starting is not part of
the duty cycle, perform the following for
the various duty cycles:
(i) Transient and steady-state rampedmodal cycles. Simultaneously start
running the duty cycle, sampling
exhaust gases, recording data, and
integrating measured values.
(ii) Steady-state discrete-mode cycles.
Control the engine operation to match
the first mode in the test cycle. This will
require controlling engine speed and
load, engine load, or other operator
demand settings, as specified in the
standard-setting part. Follow the
instructions in the standard-setting part
to determine how long to stabilize
engine operation at each mode, how
long to sample emissions at each mode,
and how to transition between modes.
(2) If engine starting is part of the duty
cycle, initiate data logging, sampling of
exhaust gases, and integrating measured
values before attempting to start the
engine. Initiate the duty cycle when the
engine starts.
(d) At the end of each test interval,
continue to operate all sampling and
dilution systems to allow the sampling
system’s response time to elapse. Then
stop all sampling and recording,
including the recording of background
samples. Finally, stop any integrating
devices and indicate the end of the duty
cycle in the recorded data.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
16144
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(e) Shut down the engine if you have
completed testing or if it is part of the
duty cycle.
(f) If testing involves another duty
cycle after a soak period with the engine
off, start a timer when the engine shuts
down, and repeat the steps in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section
as needed.
(g) Take the following steps after
emission sampling is complete:
(1) For any proportional batch sample,
such as a bag sample or PM sample,
verify that proportional sampling was
maintained according to § 1065.545.
Void any samples that did not maintain
proportional sampling according to
§ 1065.545.
(2) Place any used PM samples into
covered or sealed containers and return
them to the PM-stabilization
environment. Follow the PM sample
post-conditioning and total weighing
procedures in § 1065.595.
(3) As soon as practical after the duty
cycle is complete but no later than 30
minutes after the duty cycle is complete,
perform the following:
(i) Zero and span all batch gas
analyzers.
(ii) Analyze any gaseous batch
samples, including background samples.
(4) After quantifying exhaust gases,
verify drift as follows:
(i) For batch and continuous gas
anlyzers, record the mean analyzer
value after stabilizing a zero gas to the
analyzer. Stabilization may include time
to purge the analyzer of any sample gas,
plus any additional time to account for
analyzer response.
(ii) Record the mean analyzer value
after stabilizing the span gas to the
analyzer. Stabilization may include time
to purge the analyzer of any sample gas,
plus any additional time to account for
analyzer response.
(iii) Use these data to validate and
correct for drift as described in
§ 1065.550.
(h) Unless the standard-setting part
specifies otherwise, determine whether
or not the test meets the cycle-validation
criteria in § 1065.514.
(1) If the criteria void the test, you
may retest using the same denormalized
duty cycle, or you may re-map the
engine, denormalize the reference duty
cycle based on the new map and retest
the engine using the new denormalized
duty cycle.
(2) If the criteria void the test for a
constant-speed engine only during
commands of maximum test torque, you
may do the following:
(i) Determine the first and last
feedback speeds at which maximum test
torque was commanded.
(ii) If the last speed is greater than or
equal to 90% of the first speed, the test
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
is void. You may retest using the same
denormalized duty cycle, or you may remap the engine, denormalize the
reference duty cycle based on the new
map and retest the engine using the new
denormalized duty cycle.
(iii) If the last speed is less than 90%
of the first speed, reduce maximum test
torque by 5%, and proceed as follows:
(A) Denormalize the entire duty cycle
based on the reduced maximum test
torque according to § 1065.512.
(B) Retest the engine using the
denormalized test cycle that is based on
the reduced maximum test torque.
(C) If your engine still fails the cycle
criteria, reduce the maximum test
torque by another 5% of the original
maximum test torque.
(D) If your engine fails after repeating
this procedure four times, such that
your engine still fails after you have
reduced the maximum test torque by
20% of the original maximum test
torque, notify us and we will consider
specifying a more appropriate duty
cycle for your engine under the
provisions of § 1065.10(c).
69. Section 1065.545 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
operates above 100% of its range, repeat
the test using the next higher range.
Continue to repeat the test until the
analyzer always operates at less than
100% of its range.
(b) Drift validation and drift
correction. Calculate two sets of brakespecific emission results. Calculate one
set using the data before drift correction
and calculate the other set after
correcting all the data for drift according
to § 1065.672. Use the two sets of brakespecific emission results as follows:
(1) If the difference between the
corrected and uncorrected brakespecific emissions are within ±4% of the
uncorrected results or within ±4% of the
applicable standard for all regulated
emissions, the test is validated for drift.
If not, the entire test is void.
(2) If the test is validated for drift, you
must use only the drift-corrected
emission results when reporting
emissions, unless you demonstrate to us
that using the drift-corrected results
adversely affects your ability to
demonstrate that your engine complies
with the applicable standards.
71. Section 1065.590 is amended by
revising paragraph (j)(9) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.545 Validation of proportional flow
control for batch sampling.
§ 1065.590 PM sample preconditioning and
tare weighing.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) Positive-displacement pump
option. You may use the 1 Hz (or more
frequently) recorded pump-inlet
conditions. Demonstrate that the flow
density at the pump inlet was constant
within ±2.5% of the mean or target
density over each test interval. For a
CVS pump, you may demonstrate this
by showing that the absolute
temperature at the pump inlet was
constant within ±2% of the mean or
target absolute temperature over each
test interval.
*
*
*
*
*
70. Section 1065.550 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.550 Gas analyzer range validation,
drift validation, and drift correction.
(a) Range validation. If an analyzer
operated above 100% of its range at any
time during the test, perform the
following steps:
(1) For batch sampling, re-analyze the
sample using the lowest analyzer range
that results in a maximum instrument
response below 100%. Report the result
from the lowest range from which the
analyzer operates below 100% of its
range.
(2) For continuous sampling, repeat
the entire test using the next higher
analyzer range. If the analyzer again
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(9) Once weighing is completed,
follow the instructions given in
paragraphs (g) through (i) of this section.
72. Section 1065.595 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1065.595 PM sample post-conditioning
and total weighing.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) To stabilize PM samples, place
them in one or more containers that are
open to the PM-stabilization
environment, which is described in
§ 1065.190. A PM sample is stabilized as
long as it has been in the PMstabilization environment for one of the
following durations, during which the
stabilization environment has been
within the specifications of § 1065.190:
(1) If you expect that a filter’s total
surface concentration of PM will be
greater than about 0.5 µg/mm2, expose
the filter to the stabilization
environment for at least 60 minutes
before weighing.
(2) If you expect that a filter’s total
surface concentration of PM will be less
than about 0.5 µg/mm2, expose the filter
to the stabilization environment for at
least 30 minutes before weighing.
(3) If you are unsure of a filter s total
surface concentration of PM, expose the
filter to the stabilization environment
for at least 60 minutes before weighing.
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(4) Note that 0.5 µg/mm2 is
approximately equal to 567 µg of net PM
mass on a PM filter with a 38 mm
diameter stain area. It is also an
approximate surface concentration at
0.07 g/kW·hr for a hot-start test with
compression-ignition engines tested
according to 40 CFR part 86, subpart N,
or 50 mg/mile for a light-duty vehicle
tested according to 40 CFR part 86,
subpart B.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart G—[Amended]
73. Section 1065.610 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(1) before the
equation to read as follows:
§ 1065.610
Duty cycle generation.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Maximum test torque, Ttest. For
constant-speed engines, determine the
measured Ttest from the power-versusspeed map, generated according to
§ 1065.510, as follows:
(1) Based on the map, determine
maximum power, Pmax, and the speed at
which maximum power occurs, fnPmax.
Divide every recorded power by Pmax
and divide every recorded speed by
fnPmax. The result is a normalized powerversus-speed map. Your measured Ttest
is the torque at which the sum of the
squares of normalized speed and power
is maximum, as follows:
74. Section 1065.642 is amended as
follows:
a. By revising the reference ‘‘Eq.
1065.640–4’’ to read ‘‘Eq. 1065.640–5’’.
b. By revising the reference ‘‘Eq.
1065.640–5’’ in paragraph (b) to read
‘‘Eq. 1065.640–6’’.
c. By revising the reference ‘‘Eq.
1065.640–6’’ in paragraph (b) to read
‘‘Eq. 1065.640–7’’.
75. Section 1065.650 is amended by
revising the reference to ‘‘1065.650–5’’
in paragraph (e)(4) to be ‘‘Eq. 1065.650–
5’’ and adding Equation 1065.650–5
after Equation 1065.650–4 in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
§ 1065.650
*
*
(b) * *
(2) * *
(i) * *
16145
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) During emission testing you route
open crankcase flow to the exhaust
according to § 1065.130(i).
*
*
*
*
*
Emission calculations.
*
*
*
*
Where:
Dt = 1/frecord
*
Subpart H—[Amended]
*
77. Section 1065.701 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text
and (e) to read as follows:
Eq. 1065.650–5
*
*
*
*
*
76. Section 1065.655 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory text
and (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 1065.655 Chemical balances of fuel,
intake air, and exhaust.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Chemical balance procedure. The
calculations for a chemical balance
involve a system of equations that
require iteration. We recommend using
a computer to solve this system of
equations. You must guess the initial
values of up to three quantities: the
amount of water in the measured flow,
xH2O, fraction of dilution air in diluted
exhaust, xdil, and the amount of
products on a C1 basis per dry mole of
dry measured flow, xCproddry. For each
emission concentration, x, and amount
of water, xH2O, you must determine their
completely dry concentrations, xdry and
xH2Odry. You must also use your fuel’s
atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, and
oxygen-to-carbon ratio, b. For your fuel,
you may measure a and b or you may
use the default values in Table 1 of
§ 1065.650. Use the following steps to
complete a chemical balance:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1065.701
fuels.
General requirements for test
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Fuels not specified in this subpart.
If you produce engines that run on a
type of fuel (or mixture of fuels) that we
do not specify in this subpart, you must
get our written approval to establish the
appropriate test fuel. See the standardsetting part for provisions related to
fuels not specified in this subpart. We
will generally allow you to use the fuel
if you show us all the following things
are true:
(1) Show that this type of fuel is
commercially available.
(2) Show that your engines will use
only the designated fuel in service.
(3) Show that operating the engines
on the fuel we specify would
unrepresentatively increase emissions
or decrease durability.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Service accumulation and field
testing fuels. If we do not specify a
service-accumulation or field-testing
fuel in the standard-setting part, use an
appropriate commercially available fuel
such as those meeting minimum
specifications from the following table:
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.701.—EXAMPLES OF SERVICE-ACCUMULATION AND FIELD-TESTING FUELS
Reference procedure 1
Fuel category
Subcategory
Diesel .................................................
Light distillate and light blends with residual .................................................
Middle distillate ..............................................................................................
Biodiesel (B100) ............................................................................................
All ...................................................................................................................
Motor vehicle gasoline ...................................................................................
Minor oxygenated gasoline blends ................................................................
Ethanol (Ed75–85) .........................................................................................
Methanol (M70–M85) .....................................................................................
Aviation gasoline ............................................................................................
Gas turbine ....................................................................................................
Jet B wide cut ................................................................................................
General ..........................................................................................................
Intermediate and residual fuel ............
Gasoline .............................................
Alcohol ................................................
Aviation fuel ........................................
Gas turbine fuel ..................................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
1 ASTM
specifications are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010.
78. Section 1065.703 is amended by
revising Table 1 to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
§ 1065.703
Distillate diesel fuel.
*
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00209
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
ASTM D975–04c
ASTM D6751–03a
ASTM D6985–04a
See § 1065.705
ASTM D4814–04b
ASTM D4814–04b
ASTM D5798–99
ASTM D5797–96
ASTM D910–04a
ASTM D1655–04a
ASTM D6615–04a
ASTM D2880–03
16146
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.703.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISTILLATE DIESEL FUEL
Units
Cetane Number ..............................................................
Distillation range .............................................................
Initial boiling point ....................................................
10 pct. point .............................................................
50 pct. point .............................................................
90 pct. point .............................................................
Endpoint ...................................................................
Gravity .....................................................................
Total sulfur ...............................................................
Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall be paraffins,
naphthalenes, and olefins).
Flashpoint, min ...............................................................
Kinematic Viscosity .........................................................
.....................
°C.
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
°API .............
mg/kg ..........
g/kg .............
40–50
40–50
40–50
171–204
204–238
243–282
293–332
321–366
32–37
7–15
100
171–204
204–238
243–282
293–332
321–366
32–37
300–500
100
171–204
204–238
243–282
293–332
321–366
32–37
2000–4000
100
°C ................
cSt ...............
54
2.0–3.2
54
2.0–3.2
54
2.0–3.2
1 ASTM
Ultra low sulfur
Low sulfur
Reference
procedure 1
Item
High sulfur
ASTM D 613–03b
ASTM D 86–04b
ASTM D 287–92
ASTM D 2622–03
ASTM D 5186–03
ASTM D 93–02a
ASTM D 445–04
procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
79. Section 1065.705 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.705 Residual and intermediate
residual fuel.
This section describes the
specifications for fuels meeting the
definition of residual fuel in 40 CFR
80.2, including fuels marketed as
intermediate fuel. Residual fuels for
service accumulation and any testing
must meet the following specifications:
(a) The fuel must be a commercially
available fuel that is representative of
the fuel that will be used by the engine
in actual use.
(b) The fuel must meet the
specifications for one of the categories
in the following table:
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.705.—SERVICE ACCUMULATION AND TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR RESIDUAL FUEL
Category ISO–F–
RMK
380
RMH
700
RMK
700
Test method reference 1
1010.0
991.0
1010.0
ISO 3675 or ISO 12185:
1996/Cor 1:2001 (see
also ISO 8217:2005(E)
7.1).
Unit
RMA
30
RMB
30
RMD
80
Density at 15 °C, max
kg/m3 ..........
960.0
975.0
980.0
991.0
991.0
Kinematic viscosity at
50 °C, max.
cSt ..............
30.0
80.0
180.0
380.0
700.0
Flash point, min .........
°C ...............
60
60
60
60
60
ISO 2719 (see also ISO
8217:2005(E) 7.2).
Pour point (upper)
Winter quality, max.
Summer quality, max
°C ...............
0
24
30
30
30
30
ISO 3016.
....................
6
24
30
30
30
30
ISO 3016.
Carbon residue, max
(kg/kg)% .....
10
14
15
20
22
ISO 10370:1993/Cor
1:1996.
Ash, max ...................
(kg/kg)% .....
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.15
0.15
ISO 6245.
Water, max ................
(m3/m3)%
...
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
ISO 3733.
Sulfur, max ................
(kg/kg)% .....
3.50
4.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
ISO 8754 or ISO 14596:
1998/Cor 1:1999 (see
also ISO 8217:2005(E)
7.3).
Vanadium, max .........
mg/kg .........
150
350
600
ISO 14597 or IP 501 or IP
470 (see also ISO
8217:2005(E) 7.8).
Total sediment potential, max.
(kg/kg)% .....
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
ISO 10307–2 (see also
ISO 8217:2005(E) 7.6).
Aluminium plus silicon, max.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Characteristic
mg/kg .........
80
80
80
80
80
ISO 10478 or IP 501 or IP
470 (see also ISO
8217:2005(E) 7.9).
Used lubricating oil
(ULO), max.
mg/kg .........
Fuel shall be free of ULO. We consider a fuel to be free of ULO if one or more of the elements
zinc, phosphorus, or calcium is at or below the specified limits. We consider a fuel to contain
ULO if all three elements exceed the specified limits.
Zinc ............................
....................
15
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
RME
180
Frm 00210
RMF
180
200
RMG
380
18
500
Fmt 4701
RMH
380
22
300
Sfmt 4702
600
ISO 3104:1994/Cor
1:1997.
IP 501 or IP 470 (see ISO
8217:2005(E) 7.7).
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16147
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.705.—SERVICE ACCUMULATION AND TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR RESIDUAL FUEL—Continued
Category ISO–F–
Characteristic
Unit
Phosphorus ...............
....................
15
Calcium ......................
....................
30
1 ISO
RMA
30
RMB
30
RMD
80
RME
180
RMF
180
RMG
380
RMH
380
RMK
380
RMH
700
RMK
700
Test method reference 1
IP 501 or IP 500 (see ISO
8217:2005(E) 7.7).
IP 501 or IP 470 (see ISO
8217:2005(E) 7.7).
procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
80. Section 1065.710 is amended by
revising Table 1 to read as follows:
§ 1065.710
Gasoline.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.710.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE
Item
Units
Distillation Range ..............
Initial boiling point ......
10% point ...................
50% point ...................
90% point ...................
End point ....................
Hydrocarbon composition:
Olefins ...............................
Aromatics ...........................
Saturates ...........................
Lead (organics) .................
Phosphorous .....................
Total sulfur .........................
Volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure).
°C.
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
m 3/m 3.
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
g/liter .................................
g/liter .................................
mg/kg ................................
kPa ...................................
Reference procedure 1
General testing
Low-temperature testing
24–35 2 ............................
49–57 ................................
93–110 ..............................
149–163 ............................
Maximum, 213 ..................
24–36 ................................
37–48.
82–101 ..............................
158–174 ............................
Maximum, 212 ..................
ASTM D 86–04b
Maximum, 0.10 .................
Maximum, 0.35 .................
Remainder ........................
Maximum, 0.013 ...............
Maximum, 0.0013 .............
Maximum, 80 ....................
60.0–63.42 3 ......................
Maximum 0.175 ................
Maximum, 0.304.
Remainder.
Maximum, 0.013 ...............
Maximum, 0.005 ...............
Maximum, 80 ....................
77.2–81.4 ..........................
ASTM D 1319–03
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
D
D
D
D
3237–02
3231–02
1266–98
323–99a
1 ASTM
procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa and the specified initial boiling point range is (23.9
to 40.6 °C.
3 For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa.
2 For
81. Section 1065.715 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.715
Natural gas.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, natural gas for testing
must meet the specifications in the
following table:
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.715.—TEST FUEL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS
Item
Value 1
(mol/mol)
Methane, CH4 ..................
Ethane, C2H6 ...................
Propane, C3H8 .................
Butane, C4H10 ..................
Minimum, 0.87.
Maximum, 0.055.
Maximum, 0.012.
Maximum,
0.0035.
Maximum,
0.0013.
Maximum, 0.001.
Maximum, 0.001.
Pentane, C5H12 ................
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
C6 and higher ...................
Oxygen .............................
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.715.—TEST FUEL specifications in paragraph (a) of this
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
NATURAL section, but only if using the fuel would
not adversely affect your ability to
GAS—Continued
Value 1
(mol/mol)
Item
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
§ 1065.1010).
See
§ 1065.710(d) for other allowed procedures.
(b) In certain cases you may use test
fuel not meeting the specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(1) You may use fuel that your in-use
engines normally use, such as pipeline
natural gas.
(2) You may use fuel meeting
alternate specifications if the standardsetting part allows it.
(3) You may ask for approval to use
fuel that does not meet the
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standards.
(c) When we conduct testing using
natural gas, we will use fuel that meets
the specifications in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(d) At ambient conditions, natural gas
must have a distinctive odor detectable
down to a concentration in air not more
than one-fifth the lower flammable
limit.
82. Section 1065.720 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 1065.720
Liquefied petroleum gas.
(a) Except as specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, liquefied petroleum
gas for testing must meet the
specifications in the following table:
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.720.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
Reference Procedure 1
Item
Value
Propane, C3H8 ................................................................................................
Minimum, 0.85 m3/m3 ........................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
ASTM D 2163–91
16148
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.720.—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS—Continued
Reference Procedure 1
Item
Value
Vapor pressure at 38°C ..................................................................................
Maximum, 1400 kPa ..........................
Volatility residue (evaporated temperature, 35 °C) ........................................
Butanes ...........................................................................................................
Butenes ...........................................................................................................
Pentenes and heavier ....................................................................................
Propene ..........................................................................................................
Residual matter (residue on evap. of 100) ml oil stain observ.) ....................
Corrosion, copper strip ...................................................................................
Sulfur ..............................................................................................................
Moisture content .............................................................................................
Maximum, ¥38°C .............................
Maximum, 0.05 m3/m3 .......................
Maximum, 0.02 m3/m3 .......................
Maximum, 0.005 m3/m3 .....................
Maximum, 0.1 m3/m3 .........................
Maximum, 0.05 ml pass3 ...................
Maximum, No. 1 ................................
Maximum, 80 mg/kg ..........................
pass ...................................................
ASTM
022
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
ASTM
D 1267–02 or 2598–
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
1837–02a
2163–91
2163–91
2163–91
2163–91
2158–04
1838–03
2784–98
2713–91
1 ASTM
procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D 1267–02.
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.
2 If
3 The
(b) In certain cases you may use test
fuel not meeting the specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(1) You may use fuel that your in-use
engines normally use, such as
commercial-quality liquefied petroleum
gas.
(2) You may use fuel meeting
alternate specifications if the standardsetting part allows it.
(3) You may ask for approval to use
fuel that does not meet the
specifications in paragraph (a) of this
section, but only if using the fuel would
not adversely affect your ability to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable standards.
(c) When we conduct testing using
liquefied petroleum gas, we will use
fuel that meets the specifications in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) At ambient conditions, liquefied
petroleum gas must have a distinctive
odor detectable down to a concentration
in air not more than one-fifth the lower
flammable limit.
83. Section 1065.750 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and
(a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 1065.750
Analytical Gases.
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) Use the following gases with a FID
analyzer:
(i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated
H2 concentration of (0.400 ±0.004) mol/
mol, balance He, and a stated total
hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05
µmol/mol or less.
(ii) FID burner air. Use FID burner air
that meets the specifications of purified
air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
For field testing, you may use ambient
air.
(iii) FID zero gas. Zero flameionization detectors with purified gas
that meets the specifications in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except
that the purified gas O2 concentration
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
may be any value. Note that FID zero
balance gases may be any combination
of purified air and purified nitrogen. We
recommend FID analyzer zero gases that
contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2
expected during testing.
(iv) FID propane span gas. Span and
calibrate THC FID with span
concentrations of propane, C3H8.
Calibrate on a carbon number basis of
one (C1). For example, if you use a C3H8
span gas of concentration 200 µmol/mol,
span a FID to respond with a value of
600 µmol/mol. Note that FID span
balance gases may be any combination
of purified air and purified nitrogen. We
recommend FID analyzer span gases
that contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2
expected during testing. If the expected
exhaust O2 concentration is zero, we
recommend using a balance gas of
purified nitrogen.
(v) FID methane span gas. If you
always span and calibrate a CH4 FID
with a nonmethane cutter, then span
and calibrate the FID with span
concentrations of methane, CH4.
Calibrate on a carbon number basis of
one (C1). For example, if you use a CH4
span gas of concentration 200 µmol/mol,
span a FID to respond with a value of
200 µmol/mol. Note that FID span
balance gases may be any combination
of purified air and purified nitrogen. We
recommend FID analyzer span gases
that contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2
expected during testing. If the expected
exhaust O2 concentration is zero, we
recommend using a balance gas of
purified nitrogen.
(3) Use the following gas mixtures,
with gases traceable within ±1.0% of the
NIST accepted value or other gas
standards we approve:
(i) CH4, balance purified synthetic air
and/or N2 (as applicable).
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ii) C2H6, balance purified synthetic
air and/or N2 (as applicable).
(iii) C3H8, balance purified synthetic
air and/or N2 (as applicable).
(iv) CO, balance purified N2.
(v) CO2, balance purified N2.
(vi) NO, balance purified N2.
(vii) NO2, balance purified synthetic
air.
(viii) O2, balance purified N2.
(ix) C3H8, CO, CO2, NO, balance
purified N2.
(x) C3H8, CH4, CO, CO2, NO, balance
purified N2.
(4) You may use gases for species
other than those listed in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section (such as methanol
in air, which you may use to determine
response factors), as long as they are
traceable to within ±1.0% of the NIST
accepted value or other similar
standards we approve, and meet the
stability requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart I—[Amended]
84. Section 1065.805 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1065.805
Sampling system.
(a) Proportionally dilute engine
exhaust, and use batch sampling to
collect flow-weighted dilute samples of
the applicable alcohols and carbonyls at
a constant flow rate. You may not use
raw sampling for alcohols and
carbonyls.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart J—[Amended]
85. Section 1065.901 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 1065.901
Applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Laboratory testing. You may use
PEMS for any testing in a laboratory or
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
similar environment without restriction
or prior approval if the PEMS meets all
the specifications for the laboratory
equipment that it replaces. You may
also use PEMS for any testing in a
laboratory or similar environment if we
approve it in advance, subject to the
following provisions:
*
*
*
*
*
86. Section 1065.905 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 1065.905
General provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Laboratory testing using PEMS.
You may use PEMS for testing in a
laboratory as described in § 1065.901(b).
Use the following procedures and
specifications when using PEMS for
laboratory testing:
*
*
*
*
*
87. Section 1065.910 is revised to read
as follows:
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
§ 1065.910 PEMS auxiliary equipment for
field testing.
For field testing you may use various
types of auxiliary equipment to attach
PEMS to a vehicle or engine and to
power PEMS.
(a) When you use PEMS, you may
route engine intake air or exhaust
through a flow meter. Route the engine
intake air or exhaust as follows:
(1) Flexible connections. Use short
flexible connectors where necessary.
(i) You may use flexible connectors to
enlarge or reduce the pipe diameters to
match that of your test equipment.
(ii) Use flexible connectors that do not
exceed a length of three times their
largest inside diameter.
(iii) Use four-ply silicone-fiberglass
fabric with a temperature rating of at
least 315 °C for flexible connectors. You
may use connectors with a spring-steel
wire helix for support and you may use
NomexTM coverings or linings for
durability. You may also use any other
nonreactive material with equivalent
permeation-resistance and durability, as
long as it seals tightly.
(iv) Use stainless-steel hose clamps to
seal flexible connectors, or use clamps
that seal equivalently.
(v) You may use additional flexible
connectors to connect to flow meters.
(2) Tubing. Use rigid 300 series
stainless steel tubing to connect
between flexible connectors. Tubing
may be straight or bent to accommodate
vehicle geometry. You may use T or Y
fittings made of 300 series stainless steel
tubing to join multiple connections, or
you may cap or plug redundant flow
paths if the engine manufacturer
recommends it.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
(3) Flow restriction. Use flowmeters,
connectors, and tubing that do not
increase flow restriction so much that it
exceeds the manufacturer s maximum
specified value. You may verify this at
the maximum exhaust flow rate by
measuring pressure at the manufacturerspecified location with your system
connected. You may also perform an
engineering analysis to verify an
acceptable configuration, taking into
account the maximum exhaust flow rate
expected, the field test system s flexible
connectors, and the tubing s
characteristics for pressure drops versus
flow.
(b) For vehicles or other motive
equipment, we recommend installing
PEMS in the same location where a
passenger might sit. Follow PEMS
manufacturer instructions for installing
PEMS in cargo spaces, engine spaces, or
externally such that PEMS is directly
exposed to the outside environment.
Locate PEMS where it will be subject to
minimal sources of the following
parameters:
(1) Ambient temperature changes.
(2) Ambient pressure changes.
(3) Electromagnetic radiation.
(4) Mechanical shock and vibration.
(5) Ambient hydrocarbons—if using a
FID analyzer that uses ambient air as
FID burner air.
(c) Use mounting hardware as
required for securing flexible
connectors, ambient sensors, and other
equipment. Use structurally sound
mounting points such as vehicle frames,
trailer hitch receivers, walkspaces, and
payload tie-down fittings. We
recommend mounting hardware such as
clamps, suction cups, and magnets that
are specifically designed for your
application. We also recommend
considering mounting hardware such as
commercially available bicycle racks,
trailer hitches, and luggage racks where
applicable.
(d) Field testing may require portable
electrical power to run your test
equipment. Power your equipment, as
follows:
(1) You may use electrical power from
the vehicle, equipment, or vessel, up to
the highest power level, such that all the
following are true:
(i) The power system is capable of
safely supplying power, such that the
power demand for testing does not
overload the power system.
(ii) The engine emissions do not
change significantly as a result the
power demand for testing.
(iii) The power demand for testing
does not increase output from the
engine by more than 1 % of its
maximum power.
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
16149
(2) You may install your own portable
power supply. For example, you may
use batteries, fuel cells, a portable
generator, or any other power supply to
supplement or replace your use of
vehicle power. However, you must not
supply power to the vehicle, vessel, or
equipment s power system under any
circumstances.
88. Section 1065.915 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) before the table
and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(5)(iii)(B)
to read as follows:
§ 1065.915
PEMS instruments.
(a) Instrument specifications. We
recommend that you use PEMS that
meet the specifications of subpart C of
this part. For unrestricted use of PEMS
in a laboratory or similar environment,
use a PEMS that meets the same
specifications as each lab instrument it
replaces. For field testing or for testing
with PEMS in a laboratory or similar
environment, under the provisions of
§ 1065.905(b), the specifications in the
following table apply instead of the
specifications in Table 1 of § 1065.205.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Recording ECM signals. If your
ECM updates a broadcast signal more or
less frequently than 1 Hz, process data
as follows:
(i) If your ECM updates a broadcast
signal more frequently than 1 Hz, use
PEMS to sample and record the signal
s value more frequently. Calculate and
record the 1 Hz mean of the more
frequently updated data.
(ii) If your ECM updates a broadcast
signal less frequently than 1 Hz, use
PEMS to sample and record the signal
s value at the most frequent rate.
Linearly interpolate between recorded
values and record the interpolated
values at 1 Hz.
(iii) Optionally, you may use PEMS to
electronically filter the ECM signals to
meet the rise time and fall time
specifications in Table 1 of this section.
Record the filtered signal at 1 Hz.
*
*
*
*
*
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Use a single BSFC value that
approximates the BSFC value over a test
nterval (as defined in subpart K of this
part). This value may be a nominal
BSFC value for all engine operation
determined over one or more laboratory
duty cycles, or it may be any other BSFC
that you determine. If you use a nominal
BSFC, we recommend that you select a
value based on the BSFC measured over
laboratory duty cycles that best
represent the range of engine operation
that defines a test interval for field-
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
16150
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
testing. You may use the methods of this
paragraph (d)(5)(iii)(B) only if it does
not adversely affect your ability to
demonstrate compliance with
applicable standards.
*
*
*
*
*
89. Section 1065.920 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(7)
introductory text to read as follows:
§ 1065.920 PEMS Calibrations and
verifications.
(a) Subsystem calibrations and
verifications. Use all the applicable
calibrations and verifications in subpart
D of this part, including the linearity
verifications in § 1065.307, to calibrate
and verify PEMS. Note that a PEMS
does not have to meet the systemresponse specifications of § 1065.308 if
it meets the overall verification
described in paragraph (b) of this
section. This section does not apply to
ECM signals.
(b) * * *
(7) The PEMS passes this verification
if any one of the following are true for
each constituent:
*
*
*
*
*
90. Section 1065.925 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(8) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.925
testing.
PEMS preparation for field
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(8) If corrective action does not
resolve the deficiency, you may use a
contaminated HC system if it does not
prevent you from demonstrating
compliance with the applicable
emission standards.
91. Section 1065.935 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 1065.935 Emission test sequence for
field testing.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) Continue sampling as needed to
get an appropriate amount of emission
measurement, according to the standard
setting part. If the standard-setting part
does not describe when to stop
sampling, develop a written protocol
before you start testing to establish how
you will stop sampling. You may not
determine when to stop testing based on
emission results.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations,
acronyms, and units of measure.
Subpart K—[Amended]
92. Section 1065.1001 is amended by
revising the definitions for ‘‘Regression
statistics’’ and ‘‘Tolerance’’ and adding
definitions in alphabetical order for
‘‘Mode’’, ‘‘NIST accepted’’, and
‘‘Recommend’’ to read as follows:
§ 1065.1001
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:
*
*
CITT ...
FEL .....
Definitions.
*
*
*
(g) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
Curb Idle Transmission Torque.
Family Emission Limit.
*
*
*
*
*
Mode means one of the following:
(1) A distinct combination of engine
speed and load for steady-state testing.
(2) A continuous combination of
speeds and load specifying a transition
during a ramped-modal test.
(3) A distinct operator demand
setting, such as would occur when
testing locomotives or constant-speed
engines.
NIST accepted means relating to a
value that has been assigned or named
by NIST.
*
*
*
*
*
Recommend has the meaning given in
§ 1065.201.
Regression statistics means any of the
regression statistics specified in
§ 1065.602.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
94. Section 1065.1010 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 1065.1010
Reference materials.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) ISO material. Table 2 of this
section lists material from the
International Organization for
Standardization that we have
incorporated by reference. The first
column lists the number and name of
the material. The second column lists
the section of this part where we
reference it. Anyone may purchase
copies of these materials from the
International Organization for
Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH–
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland or https://
www.iso.org. Table 2 follows:
TABLE 2 OF § 1065.1010.—ISO MATERIALS
Part 1065
reference
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Document No. and name
ISO 14644–1, Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments .....................................................................................................
ISO 8217:2005, Petroleum products—Fuels (class F)—Specifications of marine fuels ........................................................................
ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products—Laboratory determination of density—Hydrometer method ..........
ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001, Crude petroleum and petroleum products—Determination of density—Oscillating U-tube method .......
ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997, Petroleum products—Transparent and opaque liquids—Determination of kinematic viscosity and calculation of dynamic viscosity ...............................................................................................................................................................
ISO 2719:2002, Determination of flash point—Pensky-Martens closed cup method .............................................................................
ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum products—Determination of pour point .......................................................................................................
ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996, Petroleum products—Determination of carbon residue—Micro method .................................................
ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum products—Determination of ash ..................................................................................................................
ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum products and bituminous materials—Determination of water—Distillation method ....................................
ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum products—Determination of sulfur content—Energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry ............
ISO 14596:1998/Cor 1:1999, Petroleum products—Determination of sulfur content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence
spectrometry .........................................................................................................................................................................................
ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum products—Determination of vanadium and nickel content—Wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence
spectrometry .........................................................................................................................................................................................
ISO 10307–2:1993, Petroleum products—Total sediment in residual fuel oils—Part 2: Determination using standard procedures for
aging .....................................................................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00214
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
1065.190
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules
16151
TABLE 2 OF § 1065.1010.—ISO MATERIALS—Continued
Part 1065
reference
Document No. and name
ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum products—Determination of aluminum and silicon in fuel oils—Inductively coupled plasma emission
and atomic absorption spectroscopy methods ....................................................................................................................................
IP–470, Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, calcium, zinc and sodium in residual fuels, by AAS finish ....................................
IP–500 Phosphorus content of residual fuels by ultra-violet spectrometry .............................................................................................
IP–501 Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium, 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
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
copies of these materials from the
Energy Institute, 61 New Cavendish
Street, London, W1G 7AR, UK, +44
(0)20 7467 7100 or https://
www.energyinst.org.uk. Table 6 follows:
TABLE 6 OF § 1065.1010.—INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM MATERIALS
Part 1065
reference
Document No. and name
IP–470, Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, calcium, zinc and sodium in residual fuels, by AAS finish ....................................
IP–500 Phosphorus content of residual fuels by ultra-violet spectrometry .............................................................................................
IP–501 Aluminum, silicon, vanadium, nickel, iron, sodium, 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:
§ 1068.1
Does this part apply to me?
sroberts on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
(a) The provisions of this part apply
to everyone with respect to the
following engines and to equipment
using the following engines (including
owners, operators, parts manufacturers,
and persons performing maintenance).
(1) Locomotives and locomotive
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1033.
(2) Land-based nonroad compressionignition engines we regulate under 40
CFR part 1039.
(3) Stationary compression-ignition
engines certified to the provisions of 40
VerDate Aug<31>2005
04:54 Apr 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
CFR part 1039, as indicated under 40
CFR part 60, subpart IIII.
(4) Stationary spark-ignition engines
certified to the provisions of 40 CFR
parts 1048 or 1054, as indicated under
40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
(5) Marine compression-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1042.
(6) Marine spark-ignition engines we
regulate under 40 CFR part 1045.
(7) Large nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1048.
(8) Recreational SI engines and
vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR part
1051 (such as snowmobiles and offhighway motorcycles).
(9) Small nonroad spark-ignition
engines we regulate under 40 CFR part
1054.
(b) This part does not apply to any of
the following engine or vehicle
categories:
PO 00000
Frm 00215
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1065.705
1065.705
1065.705
(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
E:\FR\FM\03APP2.SGM
03APP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 3, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15938-16151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 (NOX) emissions that contribute to
nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
PM2.5 and ozone across the United States. The emissions of
PM and ozone precursors from these engines are associated with serious
public health problems including premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, aggravation of existing asthma,
acute respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung
function. In addition, emissions from locomotives and marine diesel
engines are of particular concern, as diesel exhaust has been
classified by EPA as a likely human carcinogen.
EPA is proposing a comprehensive program to dramatically reduce
emissions from locomotives and marine diesel engines. It would apply
new exhaust emission standards and idle reduction requirements to
diesel locomotives of all types--line-haul, switch, and passenger. It
would also set new exhaust emission standards for all types of marine
diesel engines below 30 liters per cylinder displacement. These include
marine propulsion engines used on vessels from recreational and small
fishing boats to super-yachts, tugs and Great Lakes freighters, and
marine auxiliary engines ranging from small gensets to large generators
on 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 NOX reductions of 80 percent from engines meeting these
standards, compared to engines meeting the current standards.
We project that by 2030, this program would reduce annual emissions
of NOX and PM by 765,000 and 28,000 tons, respectively.
These reductions are estimated to annually prevent 1,500 premature
deaths, 170,000 work days lost, and 1,000,000 minor 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:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 566-1741
Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information
collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0190. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://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 https://
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 https://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: Mueller.John@epa.gov, 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\ \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 https://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 (https://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 NOX
emissions and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5
emissions. Absent new emissions standards, we expect overall emissions
from these engines to remain relatively flat over the next 10 to 15
years due to existing regulations such as lower fuel sulfur
requirements and the phase-in of locomotive and marine diesel Tier 1
and Tier 2 engine standards but starting in about 2025 emissions from
these engines would begin to grow. Under today's proposed program, by
2030, annual NOX emissions from locomotive and marine diesel
engines would be reduced by 765,000 tons and PM2.5 and
28,000 tons. Without new controls, by 2030, these engines would become
a large portion of the total mobile source emissions inventory
constituting 35 percent of mobile source NOX emissions and
65 percent of diesel PM emissions.
We followed certain principles when developing the elements of this
proposal. First, the program must achieve sizeable reductions in PM and
NOX emissions as early as possible. Second, as we did in the
2007 highway diesel and clean nonroad diesel programs, we are
considering engines and fuels together as a system to maximize
emissions reductions in a highly cost-effective manner. The groundwork
for this systems approach was laid in the 2004 nonroad diesel final
rule which mandated that locomotive and marine diesel fuel comply with
the 15 parts per million sulfur cap for ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
(ULSD) by 2012, in anticipation of this rulemaking (69 FR 38958, June
29, 2004). The costs, benefits, and other impacts of the locomotive and
marine diesel fuel regulation are covered in the 2004 rulemaking and
are not duplicated here. Lastly, we are proposing standards and
implementation schedules that take full advantage of the efforts now
being expended to develop advanced emissions control technologies for
the highway and nonroad sectors. As discussed throughout this proposal,
the proposed standards represent a feasible progression in the
application of advanced technologies, providing a cost-effective
program with very large public health and welfare benefits.
The proposal consists of a three-part program. First, we are
proposing more stringent standards for existing locomotives that would
apply when they are remanufactured. The proposed remanufactured
locomotive program would take effect as soon as certified remanufacture
systems are available (as early as 2008), but no later than 2010 (2013
for Tier 2 locomotives). We are also requesting comment on an
alternative under consideration that would apply a similar requirement
to existing marine diesel engines when
[[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 NOX. Third, we are proposing
longer-term standards, referred to as Tier 4, that reflect the
application of high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment technology
enabled by the availability of ULSD. These standards phase in over
time, beginning in 2014. We are also proposing provisions to eliminate
emissions from unnecessary locomotive idling.
Locomotives and marine diesel engines designed to these proposed
standards would achieve PM reductions of 90 percent and NOX
reductions of 80 percent, compared to engines meeting the current Tier
2 standards. The proposed standards would also yield sizeable
reductions in emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon
monoxide (CO), and hazardous compounds known as air toxics. Table I-1
summarizes the PM and NOX emission reductions for the
proposed standards compared to today's (Tier 2) emission standards or,
in the case of remanufactured locomotives, compared to the current
standards for each tier of locomotives covered.
Table I.-1.--Reductions From Levels of Existing Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector Proposed standards tier PM NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Locomotives..................................... Remanufactured Tier 0.................. 60% 15-20%
Remanufactured Tier 1.................. 50
Remanufactured Tier 2.................. 50
Tier 3................................. 50
Tier 4................................. 90 80
Marine Diesel Engines \a\....................... Remanufactured Engines \b\............. 25-60 up to 20
Tier 3................................. 50 20
Tier 4................................. 90 80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 NOX and
PM by 765,000 and 28,000 tons, respectively, and the magnitude of these
reductions would continue to grow well beyond 2030. We estimate that
these annual emission reductions would prevent 1,500 premature
mortalities in 2030. These annual emission reductions are also
estimated to prevent 1,000,000 minor restricted-activity days, 170,000
work days lost, and other quantifiable benefits. All told, the
estimated monetized health benefits of this rule in 2030 would be
approximately $12 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate (or $11
billion assuming a 7 percent discount rate). The annual cost of the
program in 2030 would be significantly less, at approximately $600
million.
A. What Is EPA Proposing?
This proposal is a further step in EPA's ongoing program to control
emissions from diesel engines, including those used in marine vessels
and locomotives. EPA's current standards for newly-built and
remanufactured locomotives were adopted in 1998 and were implemented in
three tiers (Tiers 0, 1, and 2) over 2000 through 2005. The current
program includes Tier 0 emission limits for existing locomotives
originally manufactured in 1973 or later, that apply when they are
remanufactured. The standards for marine diesel engines were adopted in
1998 for engines under 37 kilowatts (kW), in 1999 for commercial marine
engines, and in 2002 for recreational marine engines. These various
Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards phase in from 1999 through 2009, depending
on engine size and application. The most stringent of these existing
locomotive and marine diesel engine standards are similar in stringency
to EPA's nonroad Tier 2 standards that are now in the process of being
replaced by Tier 3 and 4 standards.
The major elements of the proposal are summarized below. We are
also proposing revised testing, certification, and compliance
provisions to better ensure emissions control in use. Detailed
provisions and our justifications for them are discussed in sections
III and IV and in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Section
VII of this preamble describes a number of alternatives that we
considered in developing this proposal, including a more simplistic
approach that would introduce 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, NOX, and toxic compounds, both in
the near-term (as early as 2008), and in the long-term. These
reductions would be achieved in a manner that: (1) Is very cost-
effective, (2) leverages technology developments in other diesel
sectors, (3) aligns well with the clean diesel fuel requirements
already being implemented, and (4) provides the lead time needed to
deal with the significant engineering design workload that is involved.
We are asking for comments on all aspects of the proposal, including
standards levels and implementation dates, and on the alternatives
discussed in this proposal.
(1) Locomotive Emission Standards
We are proposing stringent exhaust emissions standards for newly-
built and remanufactured locomotives, furthering the initiative for
cleaner locomotives started in 2004 with the establishment of the ULSD
locomotive fuel program, and adding this important category of engines
to the highway and nonroad
[[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 NOX, 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
NOX, respectively. We are proposing that remanufactured Tier
2 locomotives meet a PM standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr, based on the same
engine design improvements as Tier 3 locomotives, and that
remanufactured Tier 0 and Tier 1 locomotives meet a 0.22 g/bhp-hr PM
standard. We also propose that remanufactured Tier 0 locomotives meet a
NOX standard of 7.4 g/bhp-hr, the same level as current Tier
1 locomotives, or 8.0 g/bhp-hr if the locomotive is not equipped with a
separate loop intake air cooling system. Section III provides a
detailed discussion of these proposed new standards, and section IV
details improvements being proposed to the applicable test,
certification, and compliance programs.
In setting our original locomotive emission standards in 1998, the
historic pattern of transitioning older line-haul locomotives to road-
and yard-switcher service resulted in our making little distinction
between line-haul and switch locomotives. Because of the increase in
the size of new locomotives in recent years, that pattern cannot be
sustained by the railroad industry, as today's 4000+ hp (3000+ kW)
locomotives are poorly suited for switcher duty. Furthermore, although
there is still a fairly sizeable legacy fleet of older smaller line-
haul locomotives that could find their way into the switcher fleet,
essentially the only newly-built switchers put into service over the
last two decades have been of radically different design, employing one
to three smaller high-speed diesel engines designed for use in nonroad
applications. In light of these trends, we are establishing new
standards and special certification provisions for newly-built and
remanufactured switch locomotives that take these trends into account.
Locomotives spend a substantial amount of time idling, during which
they emit harmful pollutants and consume fuel. Two ways that idling
time can be reduced are through the use of automated systems to stop
idling locomotive engines (restarting them on an as-needed basis), and
through the use of small low-emitting auxiliary engines to provide
essential accessory power. Both types of systems are installed in a
number of U.S. locomotives today for various reasons, including to save
fuel, to help meet current Tier 0 emissions standards, and to address
complaints from railyard neighbors about noise and pollution from
idling locomotives.
We are proposing that idle control systems be required on all
newly-built Tier 3 and Tier 4 locomotives. We also propose that they be
installed on all existing locomotives that are subject to the proposed
remanufactured engine standards, at the point of first remanufacture
under the proposed standards, unless already equipped with idle
controls. We are proposing that automated stop/start systems be
required, but encourage the use of auxiliary power units by allowing
their emission reduction to be factored into the certification test
program as appropriate.
Taken together, the proposed elements described above constitute a
comprehensive program that would address the problems caused by
locomotive emissions from both a 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 NOX 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
(PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that contribute
to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
PM2.5 and ozone. NOX is a key precursor to ozone
and secondary PM formation. These engines also emit hazardous air
pollutants or air toxics, which are associated with serious adverse
health effects. Emissions from locomotive and marine diesel engines
also cause harm to public welfare, including contributing to visibility
impairment and other harmful environmental impacts across the US.
The health and environmental effects associated with these
emissions are a classic example of a negative externality (an activity
that imposes uncompensated costs on others). With a negative
externality, an activity's social cost (the cost borne to society
imposed as a result of the activity taking place) exceeds its private
cost (the cost to those directly engaged in the activity). In this
case, as described below and in Section II, emissions from locomotives
and marine diesel engines and vessels impose public health and
environmental costs on society. However, these added costs to society
are not reflected in the costs of those using these engines and
equipment. The market system itself cannot correct this externality
because firms in the market are rewarded for minimizing their
production costs, including the costs of pollution control. In
addition, firms that may take steps to use equipment that reduces air
pollution may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to
firms that do not. To correct this market failure and reduce the
negative externality from these emissions, it is necessary to give
producers the signals for the social costs generated from the
emissions. The standards EPA is proposing will accomplish this by
mandating that locomotives and marine diesel engines reduce their
emissions to a technologically feasible limit. In other words, with
this proposed rule the costs of the transportation services produced by
these engines and equipment will account for social costs more fully.
Emissions from locomotive and marine diesel engines account for
substantial portions of the country's ambient PM2.5 and
NOX levels. We estimate that today hese engines account for
about 20 percent of mobile source NOX emissions and about 25
percent of mobile source diesel PM 2.5 emissions. Under
today's proposed standards, by 2030, annual NOX emissions
from these diesel engines would be reduced by 765,000 tons and
PM2.5 emissions by 28,000 tons, and those reductions would
continue to grow beyond 2030 as fleet turnover to the clean engines is
completed.
EPA has already taken steps to bring emissions levels from light-
duty and heavy-duty highway, and nonroad diesel vehicles and engines to
very low levels over the next decade, as well as certain stationary
diesel engines also subject to these standards, while the emission
levels for locomotive and marine diesel engines remain at much higher
levels--comparable to the emissions for highway trucks in the early
1990s.
Both ozone and PM2.5 contribute to serious public health
problems, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions
and emergency room visits, school absences, lost work days, and
restricted activity days), changes in lung function and increased
respiratory symptoms, altered respiratory defense mechanisms, and
chronic bronchitis. Diesel exhaust is of special public health concern,
and since 2002 EPA has classified it as likely to be carcinogenic to
humans by inhalation at environmental exposures.\7\ Recent studies are
showing that populations living near large diesel emission sources such
as major roadways,\8\ rail yards, and marine ports \9\ are likely to
experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S.
population, putting them at greater health risks. We are currently
studying the size of the U.S. population living near a sample of
approximately 60 marine ports and rail yards, and will place the
information in the docket upon completion prior to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 https://
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: https://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: https://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 PM2.5
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 PM2.5 NAAQS or contribute to
violations in other counties. These numbers do not include individuals
living in areas that may fail to maintain or achieve the
PM2.5 NAAQS in the future.
In addition to public health impacts, there are public welfare and
environmental impacts associated with ozone and PM2.5
emissions which are also serious. Specifically, ozone causes damage to
vegetation which leads to crop and forestry economic losses, as well as
harm to national parks, wilderness areas, and other natural systems.
NOX and direct emissions of PM2.5 can contribute
to the substantial impairment of visibility in many part of the U.S.,
where people live, work, and recreate, including national parks,
wilderness areas, and mandatory class I federal areas. The deposition
of airborne particles can also reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings
and culturally important articles through soiling, and can contribute
directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to structural damage
by means of corrosion or erosion. Finally, NOX emissions
from diesel engines contribute to the acidification, nitrification, and
eutrophication of water bodies.
While EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that
are expected to reduce ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels,
including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 25162, May 12,
2005) and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June 29,
2004), the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, Jan. 18, 2001), and the
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program (65 FR 6698, Feb. 10, 2000),
the additional PM2.5 and NOX emission reductions
resulting from the standards proposed in this action would assist
states in attaining and maintaining the Ozone and the PM2.5
NAAQS near term and in the decades to come.
In September 2006, EPA finalized revised PM2.5 NAAQS
standards and over the next few years the Agency will undergo the
process of designating areas that are not able to meet this new
standard. EPA modeling, conducted as part of finalizing the revised
NAAQS, projects that in 2015 up to 52 counties with 53 million people
may violate either the daily, annual, or both standards for
PM2.5 while an additional 27 million people in 54 counties
may live in areas that have air quality measurements within 10 percent
of the revised NAAQS. Even in 2020 up to 48 counties, with 54 million
people, may still not be able to meet the revised PM2.5
NAAQS and an additional 25 million people, living in 50 counties, are
projected to have air quality measurements within 10 percent of the
revised standards. The locomotive and marine diesel PM2.5
reductions resulting from this proposal will be needed by states to
both attain and maintain the revised PM2.5 NAAQS.
State and local governments are working to protect the health of
their citizens and comply with requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ``the Act''). As part of this effort they recognize the need to
secure additional major reductions in both diesel PM2.5 and
NOX emissions by undertaking numerous state level
actions,\10\ while also seeking Agency action, including the setting of
stringent new locomotive and marine diesel engine standards being
proposed today.\11\ The emission reductions in this proposal will play
a critical part in state efforts to attain and maintain the NAAQS
through the next two decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 https://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 NOX
(in excess of 90 and 80 percent, respectively) can be achieved.
High-efficiency PM control technologies are being broadly used in
many parts of the world, and in particular to comply with EPA's 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 NOX 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 NOX standards included in EPA's
heavy-duty highway diesel and nonroad Tier 4 programs, and have been in
production for heavy duty trucks in Europe since 2005, as well as in
many stationary source applications throughout the world. These
technologies are also sensitive to sulfur.
Section III.D discusses additional engineering challenges in
applying these technologies to newly-built locomotive and marine
engines, as well as the development steps that we expect to be taken to
resolve the challenges. With the lead time available and the assurance
of ULSD for the locomotive and marine sectors in 2012, as provided by
our 2004 final rule for nonroad engines and fuel, we are confident the
proposed application of advanced technology to locomotives and marine
diesels will proceed at a reasonable rate of progress and will result
in systems capable of achieving the proposed standards on the proposed
schedule.
(3) Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act
Authority for the actions promulgated in this documents is granted
to the Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) by sections 114, 203,
205, 206, 207, 208, 213, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or ``the Act'') (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7522, 7524, 7525,
7541, 7542, 7547, 7550 and 7601(a)).
EPA is promulgating emissions standards for new marine diesel
engines pursuant to its authority under section 213(a)(3) and (4) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is promulgating emission standards for new
locomotives and new engines used in locomotives pursuant to its
authority under section 213(a)(5) of the CAA.
CAA section 213(a)(3) directs the Administrator to set
NOX, VOCs, or carbon monoxide, standards for classes or
categories of engines that contribute to ozone or carbon monoxide
concentrations in more than one nonattainment area, like marine diesel
engines. These ``standards shall achieve the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology
which the Administrator determines will be available for the engines or
vehicles, giving appropriate consideration to cost, lead time, noise,
energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.''
CAA section 213(a)(4), authorizes the Administrator to establish
standards to control emissions of pollutants which ``may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare,'' where the
Administrator determines, as it has done for emissions of PM, that
nonroad engines as a whole contribute significantly to such air
pollution. The Administrator may promulgate regulations that are deemed
appropriate, taking into account costs, noise, safety, and energy
factors, for classes or categories of new nonroad vehicles and engines
which cause or contribute to such air pollution, like diesel marine
engines.
Finally, section 213(a)(5) directs EPA to adopt emission standards
for new locomotives and new engines used in locomotives that achieve
the ``greatest degree of emissions reductions achievable through the
use of technology that the Administrator determines will be available
for such vehicles and engines, taking into account the cost of applying
such technology within the available time period, the noise, energy,
and safety factors associated with the applications of such
technology.'' Section 213(a)(5) does not require any review of the
contribution of locomotive emissions to pollution, though EPA does
provide such information in this proposal. As described in section III
of this Preamble and in Chapter 4 of the draft RIA, EPA has evaluated
the available information to determine the technology the will be
available for locomotives and engines proposed to be subject to EPA
standards.
EPA is also acting under its authority to implement and enforce
both the marine diesel emission standards and the locomotive emissions
standards. Section 213(d) provides that the standards EPA adopts for
both new locomotive and marine diesel engines ``shall be subject to
sections 206, 207, 208, and 209'' of the Clean Air Act, with such
modifications that the Administrator deems appropriate to the
regulations implementing these sections. In addition, the locomotive
and marine standards ``shall be enforced in the same manner as [motor
vehicle] standards prescribed under section 202'' of the Act. Section
213(d) also grants EPA authority to promulgate or revise regulations as
necessary to determine compliance with, and enforce, standards adopted
under section 213.
As required under section 213(a)(3), (4), and (5) we believe the
evidence provided in section III.D of this Preamble and in Chapter 4 of
draft RIA indicates that the stringent emission standards proposed
today for 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 NOX emission reductions resulting from the
standards proposed in this action would be important to states' efforts
in attaining and maintaining the Ozone and the PM2.5 NAAQS
in the near term and in the decades to come. As noted above, the risk
to human health and welfare would be significantly reduced by the
standards proposed today.
II. Air Quality and Health Impacts
The locomotive and marine diesel engines subject to today's
proposal generate significant emissions of particulate matter (PM) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) that contribute to nonattainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5
and ozone. These engines also emit hazardous air pollutants or air
toxics which are associated with serious adverse health effects.
Finally, emissions from locomotive and marine diesel engines cause harm
to the public welfare, contribute to visibility impairment, and
contribute to other harmful environmental impacts across the U.S.
By 2030, the proposed standards are expected to r